Therapy Insight: Parenteral Estrogen treatment for Prostate Cancer—a new dawn for an old therapy

Oral estrogens were the treatment of choice for carcinoma of the prostate for over four decades, but were abandoned because of an excess of cardiovascular and thromboembolic toxicity. It is now recognized that most of this toxicity is related to the first pass portal circulation, which upregulates the hepatic metabolism of hormones, lipids and coagulation proteins. Most of this toxicity can be avoided by parenteral (intramuscular or transdermal) estrogen administration, which avoids hepatic enzyme induction. It also seems that a short-term but modest increase in cardiovascular morbidity (but not mortality) is compensated for by a long-term cardioprotective benefit, which accrues progressively as vascular remodeling develops over time. Parenteral estrogen therapy has the advantage of giving protection against the effects of andropause (similar to the female menopause), which are induced by conventional androgen suppression and include osteoporotic fracture, hot flashes, asthenia and cognitive dysfunction. In addition, parenteral estrogen therapy is significantly cheaper than contemporary endocrine therapy, with substantive economic implications for health providers

Controversies in the management of advanced prostate cancer

For advanced prostate cancer, the main hormone treatment against which other treatments are assessed is surgical castration. It is simple, safe and effective, however it is not acceptable to all patients. Medical castration by means of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) analogues such as goserelin acetate provides an alternative to surgical castration. Diethylstilboestrol, previously the only non-surgical alternative to orchidectomy, is no longer routinely used. Castration reduces serum testosterone by around 90%, but does not affect androgen biosynthesis in the adrenal glands. Addition of an anti-androgen to medical or surgical castration blocks the effect of remaining testosterone on prostate cells and is termed combined androgen blockade (CAB). CAB has now been compared with castration alone (medical and surgical) in numerous clinical trials. Some trials show advantage of CAB over castration, whereas others report no significant difference. The author favours the view that CAB has an advantage over castration. No study has reported that CAB is less effective than castration. Of the anti-androgens which are available for use in CAB, bicalutamide may be associated with a lower incidence of side-effects compared with the other non-steroidal anti-androgens and, in common with nilutamide, has the advantage of once-daily dosing. Only one study has compared anti-androgens within CAB: bicalutamide plus LH-RH analogue and flutamide plus LH-RH analogue. At 160-week follow-up, the groups were equivalent in terms of survival and time to progression. However, bicalutamide caused significantly less diarrhoea than flutamide. Withdrawal and intermittent therapy with anti-androgens extend the range of treatment options. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections