Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of the Antiandrogens and Their Efficacy in Prostate Cancer

  • Review Article
  • Disease Management
  • Published:
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dorfman RI. Anti-androgenic substances. In: Dorfman RI, editor. Methods in hormone research. Vol II. New York: Academic Press, 1962: 315–23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McLeod DG, Kolvenberg GJ. Defining the role of antiandrogens in the treatment of prostate cancer. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 85–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mahler C, Akaza H, Boccardo F, et al. Secondary hormonal treatment. Proceedings of First International Consultation on Prostate Cancer; 1996 Jun 20–22; Monaco.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Neuman F, Töpert M. Pharmacology of antiandrogens. J Steroid Biochem 1986; 25(5B): 885–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schröder FH. Cyproterone acetate: mechanism of action and clincial effectiveness in prostate cancer treatment. Cancer. 1993; 72: 3810–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumann F, Jacobi GH. Antiandrogens in tumour therapy. Clin Oncol. 1982; 1: 233–44.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moffat LEF. Comparison of Zoladex, diethylstilbestrol and cyproterone acetate treatment in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 1990; 18 Suppl. 3: 26–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Robinson MRG, Hetherington J. The EORTC studies: is there an optimal endocrine management for M1 prostatic cancer? World J Urol. 1986; 4: 171–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klijn JGM, de Voogt HJ, Schröder FH, et al. Combined treatment with buserelin and cyproterone acetate in metastatic prostatic carcinoma. Lancet. 1985; II: 493.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wysowski DK, Freiman JP, Tourtelot JB, et al. Fatal and non-fatal hepatotoxicity with flutamide. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118(11): 860–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sogani PC, Vagaiwala MR, Whitmore WF Jr. Experience with flutamide in patients with advanced prostatic cancer withour prior endocrine therapy. Cancer. 1984; 54: 744.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Prout Gr Jr, Keating MA, Griffin PP, et al. Long-term experience with flutamide in patients with prostatic carcinoma. Urology. 1989; 34: 37–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Whitmore WF Jr. Natural history and staging of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 1984; 11: 209–20.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ojasoo T. Nilutamide. Drugs Future. 1987; 12: 763–70.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Decensi A, Torrisi R, Marroni P, et al. Effect of the nonsteroidal antiandrogen nilutamide on adrenal androgen secretion. Prostate. 1994; 24(1): 17–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Béland G, Elhilali M, Fradet Y, et al. Total androgen ablation: Canadian experience. Urol Clin North Am. 1991; 18: 75–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pfitzenmeyer P, Foucher P, Piard F, et al. Nilutamide pneumonitis: a report on 8 patients. Thorax. 1992; 47: 622–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Akaza H, Aso Y, Niijima T, et al. Clinical study of RU23908 (nilutamide) in prostatic cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1991; 37: 407–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Furr BJA, Valcaccia B, Curry B, et al. ICI 176, 334. A novel non-steroidal, peripherally selective antiandrogen. J Endocrinol. 1987; 113: R7–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Denis L. Indications for antiandrogen treatment in prostate cancer. In: Denis L, editor. Antiandrogens in prostate cancer. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1996: 113–20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kolvenbach GJ, Blackledge GR. Worldwide activity and safety of bicalutamide: a summary review. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 70–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bales GT, Chodak GW. A controlled trial of bicalutamide versus castration in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Urology. 1996; 47 Suppl. 1A: 38–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nieh PT. Withdrawal phenomenon with the antiandrogen Casodex. J Urol. 1995; 153: 1070–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ch. Mahler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199834050-00005

Keywords

Navigation