Abstract
Prostatic cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in males. Treatment by radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy is useful in the early stages of the disease. Whenever metastases occur, patients are usually treated by surgical (orchidectomy) or medical [gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue] castration. This form of treatment is, however, associated with unwanted adverse effects, such as flushing, loss of libido and potency and all patients ultimately escape therapy after a delay of 1 to 2 years. For this reason antiandrogens have been developed as another means of endocrine ablation therapy.
Antiandrogens fall in 2 groups of which the first group, the steroidal antiandrogens such as cyproterone acetate (CPA), have a direct blocking effect at the cellular level but also inhibit testosterone production by their additional gestagenic properties blocking gonadotropin secretion. Except in preventing the flare-up associated with the start of GnRH analogue therapy and in reducing flushing, no evidence exist of any superiority for CPA over classical therapy in terms of adverse effects and survival. The second group, the nonsteroidal or ‘pure’ antiandrogens, only block androgens at the cellular level without any central effects.
In contrast with other forms of castration, patients on pure antiandrogens as monotherapy preserve their sexual function and potency, at the expense of a slightly inferior androgen blockade and gynecomastia. These latter effects are explained by a compensatory rise in androgens as a result of the blockade at the central level, which weakens the androgen blockade, and by peripheral aromatisation of the increased androgens to oestrogens. In addition, some evidence exist that pure antiandrogens improve survival if combined with other forms of castration as they also inhibit the adrenal androgens, the so-called maximal androgen blockade (MAB). If patients escape control under MAB, a trial of stopping the antiandrogen must always be considered, as some tumours have ‘learned’ to be activated by these drugs.
At the moment it is not yet clear if antiandrogens are of any benefit in downstaging the extent of disease before prostatectomy and/or radiotherapy. Of the currently known pure antiandrogens, bicalutamide offers some advantages over flutamide as it possesses a much longer half-life, allowing a once daily regimen, and has advantages over nilutamide in terms of fewer adverse effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dorfman RI. Anti-androgenic substances. In: Dorfman RI, editor. Methods in hormone research. Vol II. New York: Academic Press, 1962: 315–23.
Labrie F, Dupont A, Bélanger A, et al. New approach in the treatment of prostate cancer: complete instead of partial withdrawal of androgens. Prostate. 1983; 4: 579–94.
Boccon-Gibod L, Laudat MH, Dugue MA, et al. Cyproterone acetate led-in prevents initial rise of serum testosterone induced by GNRH analogs in the treatment of metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Eur Urol. 1986; 12: 400–2.
Migliari R, Muscas G, Usai E. Effect of Casodex on sleep-related erections in patients with advanced prostate cancer. J Urology 1992; 148 (2 Pt 1): 338–41.
McLeod DG, Kolvenberg GJ. Defining the role of antiandrogens in the treatment of prostate cancer. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 85–9.
Mahler C, Akaza H, Boccardo F, et al. Secondary hormonal treatment. Proceedings of First International Consultation on Prostate Cancer; 1996 Jun 20–22; Monaco.
Neuman F, Töpert M. Pharmacology of antiandrogens. J Steroid Biochem 1986; 25(5B): 885–95.
Schröder FH. Cyproterone acetate: mechanism of action and clincial effectiveness in prostate cancer treatment. Cancer. 1993; 72: 3810–5.
Knuth UA, Hano R, Nieschlag E. Effect of flutamide or cyproterone acetate on pituitary and testicular hormones in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1984; 59: 963–9.
de Voogt HJ, Smith PH, Pavone-Macaluso M, et al. Cardiovascular side-effects of diethylstilbestrol, cyproterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate and estramustine phosphate used for the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer: results from EORTC trials 30761 and 30762. J Urol. 1986; 135: 303–7.
Neumann F, Jacobi GH. Antiandrogens in tumour therapy. Clin Oncol. 1982; 1: 233–44.
Jacobi GH, Altwein JE, Kurth KH, et al. Treatment of advanced prostatic cancer with parenteral cyproterone acetate: a phase II randomised trial. Br J Urol. 1980; 52: 208–15.
Pavone-Macalusco M, de Voogt HJ, Vigginao G, et al. Comparison of diethylstilbestrol, cyproterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate and estramustine phosphate in the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer: final analysis of a randomized phase II trial of the European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer Urological Group. J Urol. 1986; 136: 624–31.
Moffat LEF. Comparison of Zoladex, diethylstilbestrol and cyproterone acetate treatment in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 1990; 18 Suppl. 3: 26–7.
Robinson MRG, Hetherington J. The EORTC studies: is there an optimal endocrine management for M1 prostatic cancer? World J Urol. 1986; 4: 171–5.
de Voogt HJ, Klijn GM, Studer U, et al. Orchidectomy versus buserelin in combination with cyproterone acetate for 2 weeks or continuously, in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Preliminary results of EORTC trial 30843. J Steroid Biochem Molec Biol. 1990; 37: 965–9.
Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Maximum androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer: an overview of 22 randomised trials with 3283 deaths in 5710 patients. Lancet. 1995; 346(8970): 265–9.
Klijn JGM, de Voogt HJ, Schröder FH, et al. Combined treatment with buserelin and cyproterone acetate in metastatic prostatic carcinoma. Lancet. 1985; II: 493.
Katchen B, Buxbaum S. Dispostion of a new, nonsteroid antiandrogen, alpha, alpha, alpha trifluoro-2-methyl-4′-nitro-m-propionotoluidide (flutamide) in men following a single oral 200mg dose. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1975; 41: 373–9.
Callaway A, Bruchowsky N, Rennie PS, et al. Mechanisms of action of androgens and antiandrogens on translocation of cytoplasmatic androgen receptor and nuclear abundance of dihydrotestosterone. Prostate. 1982; 3: 599–603.
Wysowski DK, Freiman JP, Tourtelot JB, et al. Fatal and non-fatal hepatotoxicity with flutamide. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118(11): 860–4.
Sogani PC, Vagaiwala MR, Whitmore WF Jr. Experience with flutamide in patients with advanced prostatic cancer withour prior endocrine therapy. Cancer. 1984; 54: 744.
Prout Gr Jr, Keating MA, Griffin PP, et al. Long-term experience with flutamide in patients with prostatic carcinoma. Urology. 1989; 34: 37–45.
Whitmore WF Jr. Natural history and staging of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 1984; 11: 209–20.
Labrie F, Dupont A, Bélanger A. A complete androgen blockade for the treatment of prostate cancer. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Important advances in oncology. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1985: 193–217.
Crawford ED, Eisenberger MA, McLeod DG, et al. Acontrolled trial of leuprolide with and without flutamide in prostatic carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321: 419–24.
Denis L, Carneiro de Moura JL, Bono A, et al. Goserelin acetate and flutamide versus bilateral orchiedectomy: a phase III EORTC Trial (30853). Urology. 1993; 42: 119–30.
Labrie F, Dupont A, Cusan L, et al. Combination therapy with flutamide: the therapy of choice from early to advanced stages of prostate cancer. In: Denis L, editor. Antiandrogens in prostate cancer. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1996: 63–71.
Narayan P, Lowe BA, Carroll PR, et al. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and radical prostatectomy for clinical stage C carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol. 1994; 73(5): 544–8.
Cher ML, Shinohara K, Breslin S, et al. High failure rate associated with long-term follow-up of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation followed by radical prostatectomy for stage C prostatic cancer. Br J Urol. 1995; 75(6): 771–7.
Pilepich MV, Krall JM, al Sarraf M, et al. Androgen deprivation with radiation therapy compared with radiation therapy alone for locally advanced prostatic carcinoma: a randomized comparative trial of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Urology. 1995; 45(4): 616–23.
Soloway MS, Sharifi R, Wajsman Z, et al. Randomized prospective study comparing prostatectomy alone versus radical prostatectomy preceded by androgen blockade in clinical stage B2 prostate cancer. The Lupron depot neoadjuvant prostate cancer study group. J Urol. 1995; 154: 424–8.
Vaillancourt L, Ttu B, Fradet Y, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (combined androgen blockade) on normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma. A randomized study. Am J Surg Path. 1996; 20(1): 86–93.
Dupont A, Gomez JL, Cusan L, et al. Response to flutamide withdrawal in advanced prostate cancer in progression under combination therapy. J Urol. 1993; 150: 908–13.
Small EJ, Scrinivas S. The antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome. Experience in a large cohort of unselected patients with advanced prostate cancer. Cancer. 1995; 76: 1428–34.
McLeod DG, Benson RC Jr, Eisenberger MA, et al. The use of flutamide in hormone-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 72 Suppl.: 3870–3.
Ojasoo T. Nilutamide. Drugs Future. 1987; 12: 763–70.
Decensi A, Torrisi R, Marroni P, et al. Effect of the nonsteroidal antiandrogen nilutamide on adrenal androgen secretion. Prostate. 1994; 24(1): 17–23.
Harnois C, Malenfant M, Dupont A, et al. Ocular toxicity of anandron in patients treated for prostatic cancer. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986; 70: 471–3.
Gomez JL, Dupont A, Cusan L, et al. Simultaneous liver and lung toxicity related to the nonsteroidal antiandrogen nilutamide (Anandron): a case report. Am J Med. 1992; 92: 563–6.
Béland G, Elhilali M, Fradet Y, et al. Total androgen ablation: Canadian experience. Urol Clin North Am. 1991; 18: 75–82.
Pfitzenmeyer P, Foucher P, Piard F, et al. Nilutamide pneumonitis: a report on 8 patients. Thorax. 1992; 47: 622–7.
Moorjani S, Dupont A, Labrie F, et al. Increase in plasma highdensity lipoprotein concentration following complete androgen blockage in men with prostatic carcinoma. Metabolism. 1987; 36: 244–50.
Decensi AU, Boccardo F, Guarneri D, et al. Monotherapy with nilutamide, a pure nonsteroidal antiandrogen, in untreated patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1991; 146: 377–81.
Bertagna C, de Géry A, Hucher M, et al. Efficacy of the combination of Anandron (nilutamide) with orchidectomy in metastatic cancer. A meta-analysis of seven randomized double-blind trials (1191 patients). Br J Urol. 1994; 73(4): 396–402.
Knönagel H, Bolle JF, Hering F, et al. Die Therapie des metastasierten Prostatakarzinoms durch Orchiektomie plus Anandron versus Orchiektomie plus Placebo. Erste Ergebnisse einer randomisierten Multizenterstudie. Helv Chir Acta 1989; (56): 343–5.
Brisset JM. Nilutamide (AnandronR) in prostate cancer: Review of four clinical trials. In: Khoury S, Chatelain C, Denis L, editors. Urology prostate cancer. Paris: Fiis et RGP, 1990: 381–9.
Namer M, Adenis L, Couette J, et al. Orchiectomy associated with Anandron (RU 23908) or placebo in the treatment of stage D prostatic cancer: preliminary results of a randomized double blind French Cooperative Study. J Endocr Invest. 1987; 10 Suppl. 2: 50–6.
Janknegt RA, Abbou CC, Bartoletti R, et al. Orchiectomy and nilutamide or placebo as treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer in a multinational double-blind randomized trial. J Urol. 1993; 149: 77–83.
Akaza H, Aso Y, Niijima T, et al. Clinical study of RU23908 (nilutamide) in prostatic cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1991; 37: 407–20.
Le Duc A, Arvis G, Ballanger R, et al. Comparaison de l’efficacité du nilutamide (Anandron) à un placebo sur les douleurs des métastases osseuses de cancer de la prostate. Prog Urol 1992; Suppl. 2: 24–30.
Kuhn J-M, Billebaud T, Navratil H, et al. Prevention of the transient adverse effects of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (buserelin) in metastatic prostate carcinoma by administration of an antiandrogen nilutamide. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321: 413–8.
Navratil H. Preliminary clinical evaluation of leuprolin acetate depot injection in France, in the management of prostatic cancer. J Int Med Res 1990; Suppl. 1: 69–73.
Migliari R, Scarpa RM, Campus G, et al. Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of nilutamide and buserilin in the treatment of advance prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 1991; 63: 147–53.
Crawford ED, Smith Jr, Soloway MS, et al. Treatment of stage D2 prostatic cancer with leuprolide and Anandron compared to leuprolide and placebo. In: Murphy G, Khoury S, Chateliun C, et al., editor. Recent advances in urological cancers and diagnosis and treatment. Paris: SCI, 1990: 61–2.
Navratil H. Double blind study of Anandron versus placebo in stage D2 prostate cancer patients receiving buserelin: results on 49 cases from a multicentre study. In: Murphy S, Khoury P, Kuss C, et al., editors. Prostatic cancer. Part A. New York: Alan R Liss, 1987: 401–10.
Furr BJA, Valcaccia B, Curry B, et al. ICI 176, 334. A novel non-steroidal, peripherally selective antiandrogen. J Endocrinol. 1987; 113: R7–9.
Denis L. Indications for antiandrogen treatment in prostate cancer. In: Denis L, editor. Antiandrogens in prostate cancer. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1996: 113–20.
Verhelst J, Denis L, Van Vliet P, et al. Endocrine profiles during administration of the new non-steroidal antiandrogen Casodex in prostate cancer. Clin Endocrinol. 1994; 41(4): 525–30.
Kolvenbach GJ, Blackledge GR. Worldwide activity and safety of bicalutamide: a summary review. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 70–9.
Bales GT, Chodak GW. A controlled trial of bicalutamide versus castration in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 38–43.
Kaisary AV, Tyrrell CJ, Beacock C, et al. A randomised comparison of monotherapy with Casode 50 mg daily and castration in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer: Casodex Study Group. Eur Urol. 1995; 28(3): 215–22.
Chodak G, Sharifi R, Kasimis B, et al. Single agent therapy with bicalutamide: a comparison with medical or surgical castration in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Urology. 1995; 46(6): 849–55.
Schellhamer P, Sharifi R, Block N, et al. Maximal androgen blockade for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: outcome of a controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy. Casodex combination study group. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 54–60.
Nieh PT. Withdrawal phenomenon with the antiandrogen Casodex. J Urol. 1995; 153: 1070–2.
Liebertz C, Kelly WK, Theodoulou M, et al. High-dose Casodex for prostate cancer (PC): PSA declines in patients with flutamide withdrawal responses. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1995; 14: 232.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mahler, C., Verhelst, J. & Denis, L. Clinical Pharmacokinetics of the Antiandrogens and Their Efficacy in Prostate Cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet 34, 405–417 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199834050-00005
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199834050-00005