The prostate secretes enzymes and nutrients to promote sperm motility. Recent reports suggest that the prostate may also secrete testosterone, which is believed to be a fuel for prostate tumour growth. The aim of this study was to determine if a difference in serum testosterone levels exists between men on luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists who have undergone radical prostatectomy, radiation or hormone therapy as primary prostate cancer treatment.
Serum testosterone levels were evaluated in 165 consecutive prostate cancer patients using LHRH analogues for >3 months. We excluded patients receiving either radiation or chemotherapy at time of time of testosterone measurement. Patients were classified based on primary treatment: (1) radical prostatectomy; (2) radiation; or (3) primary hormone therapy. We used one-way ANOVA to compare testosterone levels. Pearson correlation was used to correlate testosterone with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and time on LHRH agonists. Multivariable linear regression was used to predict serum testosterone levels.
The median (interquartile range) serum testosterone levels were 1.4 (1–1.9), 1.3 (1–1.625) and 1.25 (0.9–1.525) nmol/L for radical prostatectomy, radiation and primary hormone therapy groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in testosterone levels between the groups (p = 0.3). No correlation was found between testosterone and PSA levels or time on LHRH (r = 0.02 and r = 0.01), respectively. Multivariable linear regression showed that none of the clinical variables were predictors of serum testosterone levels.
Our study suggests that primary treatment does not affect serum testosterone levels among men using LHRH analogues.
We examined the serum levels of testosterone (T) (total and bioavailable) dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in men receiving treatment with luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists for metastatic prostate cancer. In doing this, we want to determine the efficacy of these agents in lowering T levels and whether a possible relationship exists between PSA values, as a surrogate measure of tumour activity, and hormone levels.
This was a single centre prospective study of patients on LHRH agonists. Of all the 100 eligible patients, 31 did not qualify (10 were receiving their first injection, 13 were on intermittent hormonal therapy, 7 refused to enter the trial and 1 patient’s blood sample was lost). Therefore in total, 69 patients were included in the final analysis. Each patient had their blood sample drawn immediately before the administration of a LHRH agonist. The new proposed criteria of <20 ng/dL (0.69 nmol/L) of total testosterone was used to define optimal levels of the hormone in this population.
Of the 69 patients, 41 were on goserelin injections, 21 on leuprolide, and 7 on buserelin. There was no statistical difference in hormone levels between any of the medications. Overall, 21% of patients failed to reach optimal levels of total testosterone. PSA levels were higher in this group. There was a statistically significant correlation between PSA and testosterone levels, as well as between PSA and FSH. Serum levels of PSA, however, did not correlate with those of bioavailable testosterone.
Failure to reach optimal levels of testosterone occurs in patients on LHRH agonist therapy. Higher PSA values are more commonly found in patients with suboptimal levels of testosterone receiving LHRH analogs, but the clinical importance of this finding has not been established. There is no significant difference with respect to hormonal levels reached among patients on a variety of LHRH agonists. Total testosterone determinations should be considered in patients on LHRH agonist therapy, particularly when the PSA values begin to rise since it may lead to further beneficial hormonal manipulation.
Androgen deprivation therapy remains the mainstay of medical treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Commonly, this is achieved with medical androgen deprivation rather than surgical intervention as the permanence and psychological effects of the latter are unacceptable for most patients. Degarelix is a third generation antagonist of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH, also termed gonadotropin-releasing hormone) for the first-line treatment of androgen-dependent advanced prostate cancer. Degarelix acts directly on the pituitary receptors for LHRH, blocking the action of endogenous LHRH. The use of degarelix eliminates the initial undesirable surge in gonadotropin and testosterone levels, which is produced by agonists of LHRH. Degarelix is the most comprehensively studied and widely available LHRH antagonist worldwide. Clinical trials have demonstrated that degarelix has a long-term efficacy similar to the LHRH agonist leuprolide in achieving testosterone suppression in patients with prostate cancer. Degarelix, however, produces a faster suppression of testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), with no testosterone surges or microsurges, and thus prevents the risk of clinical flare in advanced disease. Recent clinical trials demonstrated that treatment with degarelix results in improved disease control when compared with an LHRH agonist in terms of superior PSA progression-free survival, suggesting that degarelix likely delays progression to castration-resistant disease and has a more significant impact on bone serum alkaline phosphatase and follicle-stimulating hormone. Degarelix is usually well tolerated, with limited toxicity and no evidence of systemic allergic reactions in clinical studies. Degarelix thus represents an important addition to the hormonal armamentarium for therapy of advanced androgen-dependent prostate cancer.
degarelix; GnRH; LHRH; metastatic prostate cancer; androgen-dependent prostate cancer; hormonal therapy
Management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is challenging due to lack of efficacious therapy. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogs appear to act directly on cells based on the LHRH receptors on human prostate adenocarcinoma cells. We explored anticancer activity of a cytotoxic analog of LHRH, AEZS-108, consisting of LHRH agonist linked to doxorubicin. Nude mice bearing DU-145 tumors were used to compare antitumor effects of AEZS-108 with its individual constituents or their unconjugated combination. The tumor growth inhibition of conjugate was greatest among treatment groups (90.5% inhibition vs. 41% by [D-Lys(6)]LHRH+DOX). The presence of LHRH receptors on DU-145 cells was confirmed by immunocytochemistry. In vitro, AEZS-108 significantly inhibited cell proliferation (61.2% inhibition) and elevated apoptosis rates (by 46%). By the detection of the inherent doxorubicin fluorescence, unconjugated doxorubicin was seen in the nucleus; the conjugate was perinuclear and at cell membrane. Autophagy, visualized by GFP-tagged p62 reporter, was increased by AEZS-108 (7.9-fold vs. 5.3-fold by DOX+[D-Lys(6)]LHRH. AEZS-108 more effectively increased reactive oxygen species (ROS, 2-fold vs. 1.4-fold by DOX+[D-Lys(6)]LHRH) and levels of the apoptotic regulator p21 in vivo and in vitro. We demonstrate robust inhibitory effects of the targeted cytotoxic LHRH analog, AEZS-108, on LHRHR positive castration-resistant prostate cancer cells.
cytotoxic peptide analog; targeted therapy; GnRH; reactive oxygen species; hormone-naive prostate cancer; CRPC; LHRH agonist
Long-acting luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, such as goserelin, have been used for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer for many years and are the main forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Acting on pituitary LHRH receptors, they initially stimulate a transient rise in serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and LH. Long-term administration of an LHRH analogue will eventually lead to down regulation of LHRH receptors, thus suppressing FSH and LH secretion. This in turn suppresses testosterone production hence achieving and maintaining androgen deprivation. This case highlights the potential anomaly of a sustained elevated serum testosterone in the context of newly diagnosed locally advanced prostate cancer with a co-existing pituitary macroadenoma after administration of LHRH analogues. Alternative methods of androgen deprivation must be considered in such patients.
Orntide acetate, a novel luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist, was prepared and evaluated in vivo in 30-day and 120-day sustained delivery formulations using a rat animal model. Orntide poly(d,l- lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and poly(d,l- lactide) (PLA) microspheres were prepared by a dispersion method and administered subcutaneously in a liquid vehicle to rats at 2.2 mg Orntide/kg of body weight (30-day forms) or 8.8 mg Orntide/kg (120-day forms). Serum levels of Orntide and testosterone were monitored by radioimmunoassays, and a dose-response study at 4 closes (3, 2.25, 1.5, and 1.75 mg Orntide/kg) was conducted to determine the effective dose of Orntide. Microspheres with diameters between 3.9 and 14 μ were prepared. The onset and duration of testosterone suppression varied for different microsphere formulations and were influenced both by polymer properties and by microsphere characteristics. Microspheres prepared with 50∶50 and 75∶25 copolymers effectively sustained peptide release for 14 to 28 days, whereas an 85∶15 copolymer and the PLA microspheres extended the pharmacological response for more than 120 days. Increase in drug load generally accelerated peptide release from the microspheres, resulting in higher initial serum levels of Orntide and shorter duration of the release: In general, apparent release was faster in vivo than under in vitro conditions. Orntide microspheres effectively suppressed testosterone in rats, providing rapid onset of release and extended periods of chemical castration. Testosterone suppression occurred immediately after microsphere administration without the initial elevation seen with LHRH superagonists.
LHRH antagonist; Orntide acetate; Peptide controlled delivery; PLGA microspheres; Prostate cancer
Goals of Work
Data suggest that treatment with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists may be associated with reduced cognitive functioning. The purpose of the current study was to compare rates of clinically-significant cognitive impairment in men treated with LHRH agonists to a matched sample of healthy men without cancer.
Patients and Methods
Participants were 48 men receiving LHRH agonist therapy for prostate cancer and 48 men with no history of cancer matched to patients on age and education. Participants were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests assessing the domains of verbal memory, verbal fluency, visuospatial memory, visuospatial abilities, and executive function. Clinically-significant impairment on individual tests was defined as −1.5 SD below the normative mean; overall impairment was defined as impaired performance on two or more tests.
Patients did not differ from comparison subjects in age, ethnicity, race, education, or annual household income (ps > .05). No statistically significant differences in test means were found. Nevertheless, patients displayed greater overall impairment in cognitive functioning than comparison subjects (42% of patients versus 19% of comparison subjects, p < .05). Among patients, prior prostatectomy was associated with impaired immediate and delayed verbal memory (ps < .05).
Current findings suggest that LHRH agonists and surgery for prostate cancer are associated with clinically-significant impairment in cognitive functioning. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine changes in cognitive impairment before and after surgical and hormonal treatment for prostate cancer. Patients undergoing LHRH agonist therapy should be monitored for cognitive changes while on treatment.
Prostatic Neoplasms; Neuropsychological Tests; Cognition
To define the profile of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) receiving a 3-month or 6-month formulation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist in France and the reasons for choosing between formulations.
This prospective 1-year observational study included patients with PCa starting LHRH agonist therapy in everyday practice. Reasons for prescription and patient preference were recorded at inclusion, 3 or 6 months, and 12 months. The percentage of patients with a renewed initial prescription was recorded during follow up.
A total of 1438 patients with PCa were included. Hormonotherapy was initiated more frequently with a 6-month (n = 903; 62.8%) than with a 3-month formulation (n = 535; 37.2%). The initial prescription was renewed in most patients after 3 or 6 months (86.1%) and 12 months (71%); 170 patients switched from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. Presence of metastases influenced initial prescription (odds ratio 0.439; 95% confidence interval 1.095–1.892), with a 3-month formulation more often prescribed than a 6-month formulation to men with metastatic PCa at diagnosis (21.3% versus 15.8%, respectively). The most frequent reasons given by physicians for choosing the 6-month formulation were ‘simplification of therapeutic regimen’ (86.9%) or ‘fewer unnecessary visits’ (46.8%). Similar reasons were given for switching from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. The most frequent reasons given by physicians to initiate therapy with a 3-month formulation were ‘usual practice/habit’ (55.5%) or ‘closer patient management’ (46.2%). ‘Closer patient management’ and ‘reassuring effect upon patient’ were the main reasons for switching from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation during follow up. Approximately 80% of patients were satisfied with the formulation they were prescribed and patients’ reasons for preferring one formulation over another were similar to the physicians’ reasons for prescribing these formulations.
Slow-release formulations of LHRH agonists are useful therapies for physicians treating patients with PCa and there may be a preference for the 6-month formulation.
hormonotherapy; luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists; prostate cancer; slow-release formulations
Antiandrogen withdrawal is a potential therapeutic maneuver for patients with progressive prostate cancer. This study was designed to examine antiandrogen withdrawal effects within the context of a large multi-institutional prospective trial.
Eligibility criteria included progressive prostate adenocarcinoma despite combined androgen blockade. Eligible patients received prior initial treatment with an antiandrogen plus orchiectomy or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist. Patients were stratified according to type of antiandrogen, type of progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] or radiographic), presence or absence of metastatic disease, and prior LHRH agonist versus surgical castration.
A total of 210 eligible and evaluable patients had a median follow-up of 5.0 years; 64% of patients previously received flutamide, 32% bicalutamide, and 3% nilutamide. Of the 210 patients, 21% of patients had confirmed PSA decreases of ≥50% (95% CI, 16% to 27%). No radiographic responses were recorded. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3 months (95% CI, 2 months to 4 months); however, 19% had 12-month or greater progression-free intervals. Median overall survival (OS) after antiandrogen withdrawal was 22 months (20 and 40 months for those with and without radiographic evidence of metastatic disease, respectively). Multivariate analyses indicated that longer duration of antiandrogen use, lower PSA at baseline, and PSA-only progression at study entry were associated with both longer PFS and OS. Longer antiandrogen use was the only significant predictor of PSA response.
These data indicate a relatively modest rate of PSA response in patients who were undergoing antiandrogen withdrawal; however, PFS can be relatively prolonged (≥1 year) in approximately 19% of patients.
antiandrogen withdrawal; prostate cancer; PSA; prognosis; survival; secondary hormonal therapy; hormone-refractory prostate cancer
Active targeting could increase the efficacy of anticancer drugs. Methotrexate-human serum albumin (MTX-HSA) conjugates, functionalized by luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) as targeting moieties, with the aim of specifically targeting the cancer cells, were prepared. Owing to the high expression of LHRH receptors in many cancer cells as compared to normal cells, LHRH was used as the targeting ligand in this study. LHRH was conjugated to MTX-HSA nanoparticles via a cross-linker. Three types of LHRH targeted nanoparticles with a mean particle size between 120–138 nm were prepared. The cytotoxicity of LHRH targeted and non-targeted nanoparticles were determined on the LHRH positive and negative cell lines. The internalization of the targeted and non-targeted nanoparticles in LHRH receptor positive and negative cells was investigated using flow cytometry analysis and fluorescence microscopy. The cytotoxicity of the LHRH targeted nanoparticles on the LHRH receptor positive cells were significantly more than non-targeted nanoparticles. LHRH targeted nanoparticles were also internalized by LHRH receptor positive cells significantly more than non-targeted nanoparticles. There were no significant differences between the uptake of targeted and non-targeted nanoparticles to the LHRH receptor negative cells. The active targeting procedure using LHRH targeted MTX-HSA nanoparticles could increase the anti-tumoral activity of MTX.
nanoparticles; drug targeting; conjugates; anti-cancer; human serum albumin; LHRH
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas are invariably lethal and developing effective treatments that have minimal side effects is a challenge. Previous studies from our lab have shown that conjugates of cell membrane disrupting lytic peptides and luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) target and destroy human prostate and breast cancer cells in xenografts in the nude mouse model 1, 2 which express LHRH receptors. The objectives of this study were to synthesize a bioconjugate of LHRH analog ([DLys6]-LHRH) and a dietary micro-chemical (Curcumin) and test the hypothesis that [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin targets and inhibits pancreatic cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo. In in vitro studies, we determined by confocal microscopy, flow cytometry analysis and RT-PCR that MIAPaCa-2, Panc-1 and BxPC-3 pancreatic cancer cell lines express LHRH receptors. [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin inhibited cell proliferation of pancreatic cancer cell lines and induced apoptotic cell death (p < 0.05). Apoptosis was induced by cleavage of PARP and Caspase-3. The activity of [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin was equal to free Curcumin at equimolar concentrations in vitro. Unlike Curcumin itself, the [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin conjugate is water soluble which allows its intravenous administration. In two in vivo studies, [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin given intravenously caused a significant (p < 0.01) reduction in tumor weights and volumes, and free Curcumin given by gavage at an equal dose failed to cause a significant reduction in tumor weights and volumes in the nude mouse pancreatic cancer model. [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin treatment enhanced apoptosis compared to [DLys6]-LHRH and vehicle treated controls in tumor tissue. In conclusion, [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin may be useful in treating pancreatic cancer.
Pancreatic cancer; Curcumin; [DLys6]-LHRH-Curcumin; luteinizing hormone releasing hormone receptor; tumor growth inhibition
Current standard adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer include tamoxifen and chemotherapy, depending on the disease prognosis and menopausal status. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues offer a different approach to the management of early breast cancer in pre- and perimenopausal women. The most widely studied LHRH analogue is goserelin. It acts on the hypothalamic-pituitary axis to suppress ovarian function, decreasing luteinizing hormone and oestradiol levels to post-menopausal values. Pooled data from 228 premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer enrolled in 29 studies worldwide demonstrated an objective response rate for goserelin, 3.6 mg, of 36.4%, with a median duration of response of 44 weeks. These results fall well within the ranges of reported response rates for ovarian ablation and for tamoxifen in similar patient populations. By virtue of its mode of action, goserelin does not stimulate the ovaries and is unlikely to have detrimental effects on the endometrium. In addition, given that goserelin has no oestrogen agonist-like effects, unlike tamoxifen, there is no potential for tumour stimulation in those patients becoming resistant to treatment. Goserelin is generally well tolerated, and the main side-effects are related to ovarian suppression, which is potentially reversible. Preliminary results in premenopausal women with early breast cancer indicate that endocrine treatment with goserelin plus tamoxifen may be as effective as standard combination chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil), but has significantly less acute toxicity. A number of large, randomized trials are now in progress to assess the potential role of goserelin as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.
The effect of the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, [D-Trp6,Pro9-NEth]LHRH (LHRHA), on luteinizing hormone (LH) bioactivity was assessed with a rat interstitial cell assay in four men during a 14-d treatment period. Biologic/immunologic (B/I) ratios were unchanged initially with treatment but by day 12 had fallen to levels lower than basal values. Frequent sampling on day 12 revealed blunted gonadotropin responsiveness to LHRHA and absence of spontaneous LH pulsations. Despite continued administration of LHRHA, human chorionic gonadotropin administration resulted in elevated B/I ratios and testosterone levels. Further characterization of the serum immunoreactive LH by Sephadex chromatography revealed a later elution profile during treatment with LHRHA. Thus, LHRHA appears to act, in part, by modification of the bioactivity of LH in man.
Precocious puberty is a significant child health problem, especially in girls, because 95% of cases are idiopathic. Our earlier studies demonstrated that low-dose levels of manganese (Mn) caused precocious puberty via stimulating the secretion of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH). Because glial-neuronal communications are important for the activation of LHRH secretion at puberty, we investigated the effects of prepubertal Mn exposure on specific glial-derived puberty-related genes known to affect neuronal LHRH release. Animals were supplemented with MnCl2 (10 mg/kg) or saline by gastric gavage from day 12 until day 22 or day 29, then decapitated, and brains removed. The site of LHRH release is the medial basal hypothalamus (MBH), and tissues from this area were analyzed by real-time PCR for transforming growth factor α (TGFα), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) messenger RNA levels. Protein levels for IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) were measured by Western blot analysis. LHRH gene expression was measured in the preoptic area/anteroventral periventricular (POA/AVPV) region. In the MBH, at 22 days, IGF-1 gene expression was increased (p < 0.05) with a concomitant increase (p < 0.05) in IGF-1R protein expression. Mn also increased (p < 0.01) COX-2 gene expression. At 29 days, the upregulation of IGF-1 (p < 0.05) and COX-2 (p < 0.05) continued in the MBH. At this time, we observed increased (p < 0.05) LHRH gene expression in the POA/AVPV. Additionally, Mn stimulated prostaglandin E2 and LHRH release from 29-day-old median eminences incubated in vitro. These results demonstrate that Mn, through the upregulation of IGF-1 and COX-2, may promote maturational events and glial-neuronal communications facilitating the increased neurosecretory activity, including that of LHRH, resulting in precocious pubertal development.
manganese; IGF-1; COX-2; puberty
Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonists rapidly reduce testosterone and are preferred to LHRH agonists in situations when early response is important. The lack of flare reaction, as compared to LHRH agonists, is particularly desirable as it would not aggravate the problem. A 78-year-old man presented with symptoms of urinary tract obstruction. He had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 91.3 ug/L and serum creatinine 146 umol/L. He had a large pelvic mass due to histologically confirmed prostate cancer, resulting in moderate left hydronephrosis and deteriorating renal function (serum creatinine of 163 umol/L). He was started on combined degarelix and bicalutamide on the day of consultation (day 0). The hydronephrosis resolved on the repeat computerized tomography scan performed on day 10. Serum creatinine normalized to under 130 umol/L on day 18. The PSA fell to 11 ug/L on day 18, 2.8 ug/L on day 28, and 0.5 ug/L on day 53. Therefore, LHRH antagonists are particularly useful in urgent situations. It is the preferred choice in these circumstances.
Previously, we have shown that 17β-estradiol (E2) induces an increase in firing activity and modifies the pattern of intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i) oscillations with a latency less than 1 min in primate luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) neurons. A recent study also indicates that E2, the nuclear membrane impermeable estrogen, estrogen- dendrimer conjugate (EDC), and the plasma membrane impermeable estrogen, E2-BSA conjugate, all similarly stimulated LHRH release within 10 min of exposure in primate LHRH neurons, indicating that the rapid action of E2 is caused by membrane signaling. The results from a series of studies further suggest that the rapid E2 action in primate LHRH neurons appears to be mediated by GPR30. Whereas the estrogen receptor antagonist, ICI 182,780, neither blocked the E2-induced LHRH release nor the E2-induced changes in [Ca2+]i oscillations, E2 application to cells treated with pertussis toxin (PTX) failed to result in these changes in primate LHRH neurons. Moreover, knockdown of GPR30 in primate LHRH neurons by transfection with human siRNA for GPR30 completely abrogated the E2-induced changes in [Ca2+]i oscillations, whereas transfection with control siRNA did not. Finally, the GPR30 agonist, G1, resulted in changes in [Ca2+]i oscillations similar to those observed with E2. In this review the authors discuss the possible role of G-protein coupled receptors in the rapid action of estrogen in neuronal cells.
GnRH neurons; rapid action of estrogen; GPR30; GPCR; primates
The G-protein coupled receptor, GPR54, and its ligand, a KiSS-1 derived peptide kisspeptin-54, appear to play an important role in the mechanism of puberty. This study measures the release of kisspeptin-54 in the stalk-median eminence (S-ME) during puberty and examines its potential role in the pubertal increase in luteinizing hormone releasing hormone-1 (LHRH-1) release in female rhesus monkeys. First, developmental changes in release of kisspeptin-54 and LHRH-1 were assessed in push-pull perfusate samples obtained from the S-ME of prepubertal, early pubertal, and midpubertal female rhesus monkeys. Whereas LHRH-1 levels in 10-min intervals had been measured previously for other experiments, kisspeptin-54 levels in 40-min pooled samples were newly measured by RIA. The results indicate that a significant increase in kisspeptin-54 release occurred in association with the pubertal increase in LHRH-1 release and that a nocturnal increase in kisspeptin-54 release was already observed in prepubertal monkeys and continued through the pubertal period. Second, we measured kisspeptin-54 release in the S-ME of midpubertal monkeys at 10-min intervals using a microdialysis method. Kisspeptin-54 release in the S-ME was clearly pulsatile with an interpulse interval of ~60 min and approximately 75% of kisspeptin-54 pulses were correlated with LHRH-1 pulses. Finally, the effect of kisspeptin-10 on LHRH-1 release was examined with the microdialysis method. Kisspeptin-10 infusion through a microdialysis probe significantly stimulated LHRH-1 release in a dose-dependent manner. Collectively, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that kisspeptin plays a role in puberty.
LHRH-1; GnRH; kisspeptin; puberty; primates
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has traditionally formed the mainstay of treatment for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer (PCa); however, it is now also having an increasingly important role in earlier stages of disease. Indeed, in patients with locally advanced or high-risk localised disease, the addition of neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy is now considered the standard of care for those men treated with radical radiotherapy. Although luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists have been used for many years as ADT, they may be associated with clinical flare and testosterone breakthrough. Newer hormonal agents continue to be developed, such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists, which reduce testosterone and prostate-specific antigen levels more rapidly than LHRH agonists, without testosterone flare. This review examines ADT use in combination with radiotherapy to improve outcomes in localised or locally advanced disease, and examines some of the latest developments in hormonal therapy for PCa.
prostate cancer; androgen deprivation therapy; radiotherapy; neoadjuvant hormonal therapy; adjuvant hormonal therapy; GnRH antagonists
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been reported to reduce the bone mineral density (BMD) in men with prostate cancer (CaP). However, Afro-Caribbeans are under-represented in most studies. The aim was to determine the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on the bone mineral density (BMD) of men with prostate cancer in Jamaica.
The study consisted of 346 Jamaican men, over 40 years of age: 133 ADT treated CaP cases (group 1), 43 hormone-naïve CaP controls (group 2) and 170 hormone naïve controls without CaP (group 3). Exclusion criteria included metastatic disease, bisphosphonate therapy or metabolic disease affecting BMD. BMD was measured with a calcaneal ultrasound and expressed in S.D. units relative to young adult men (T score), according to the World Health Organization definition. Patient weight, height and BMI were assessed.
Mean ± sd, age of patients in group 1 (75± 7.4 yrs) was significantly greater than groups 2 and 3 (67 ± 8.1 yrs; 65±12.0 yrs). There was no significant difference in weight and BMI between the 3 groups. . The types of ADT (% of cases, median duration in months with IQR) included LHRH (Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone) analogues (28.6%, 17.9, IQR 20.4), oestrogens (9.8%, 60.5, IQR 45.6) anti-androgens (11.3%, 3.3, IQR 15.2) and orchiectomy (15.7%, 43.4, IQR 63.9). Unadjusted t score of group 1, mean ± sd, (-1.6± 1.5) was significantly less than group 2 (-0.9±1.1) and group 3 (-0.7±1.4), p <0.001. Ninety three (69.9%), 20 (45%) and 75 (42%) of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively were classified as either osteopenic or osteoporotic (p<0.001). Adjusting for age, there was a significant difference in t scores between groups 1 and 2 as well as between groups 1 and 3 (p<0.001). Compared with oestrogen therapy and adjusting for duration of therapy, the odds of low bone mineral density (osteopenia or osteoporosis) with LHRH analogue was 4.5 (95%CI, 14.3 to 3.4); with anti-androgens was 5.9 (95%CI, 32.7 to 5); with orchiectomy was 7.3 (95%CI, 30 to 5.8) and multiple drugs was 9.2 ((95%CI, 31 to 7.1).
ADT is associated with lower BMD in Jamaican men on hormonal therapy for prostate cancer.
RTOG 0518 evaluated the potential benefit of zoledronic acid therapy in preventing bone fractures for patients with high grade and/or locally advanced, non-metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma receiving luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and radiotherapy (RT).
Eligible patients with T-scores of the hip (< −1.0, but > −2.5 vs. > −1.0) and negative bone scans were prospectively randomized to either zoledronic acid, 4 mg, concurrently with the start of RT and then every six months for a total of 6 infusions (Arm 1) or observation (Arm 2). Vitamin D and calcium supplements were given to all patients. Secondary objectives included quality of life (QOL) and bone mineral density (BMD) changes over a period of three years.
Of 109 patients accrued before early closure, 96 were eligible. Median follow-up was 36.3 months for Arm I and 34.8 months for Arm 2. Only two patients experienced a bone fracture (1 in each arm) resulting in no difference in freedom from any bone fracture (p=0.95), nor in QOL. BMD percent changes from baseline to 36 months were statistically improved with the use of zoledronic acid compared to observation for the lumbar spine (6% vs. −5%, p<0.0001), left total hip (1% vs. −8%, p=0.0002), and left femoral neck (3% vs. −8%, p=0.0007).
For patients with advanced, non-metastatic prostate cancer receiving LHRH agonist and RT, the use of zoledronic acid was associated with statistically improved BMD percent changes. The small number of accrued patients resulted in decreased statistical power to detect any differences in the incidence of bone fractures or QOL.
radiation therapy; androgen deprivation therapy; osteoporosis; prostate cancer; bone fractures
Metastatic prostate cancer, which shows progression despite castration testosterone levels, was previously defined as hormone-refractory. This definition has recently been changed to the one presently used – castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Numerous fundamental studies have provided evidence that the development of hormone-refractory prostate cancer is constantly dependent on the concentration of androgens. The aim of the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment is currently to obtain the lowest possible androgen concentration. The effectiveness of such management has been proven by the results of clinical studies on the latest hormonal and chemotherapeutic medications. In the last two decades, new effective chemotherapeutics have become available on the market: abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, zoldronic acid, denosumab and alpharadin They significantly contribute to extending patients’ survival and to improving their quality of life. Therefore, the question arises whether using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues is still a necessary element of the therapy. A detailed analysis of study regimens involving the above-mentioned medications and of available publications supports the view that LHRH analogues are the basic strategy in the treatment of patients with mCRPC. All clinical trials evaluating new therapies still followed the principle of obtaining castration testosterone levels as a result of using LHRH analogues simultaneously with the new medications.
metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer; LHRH analogues; hormone therapy; chemotherapy
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men. For patients with hormone-refractory disease, few treatments are available once the tumor has metastasized beyond the prostate. In the present study, two conjugated lytic peptide sequences (named JCHLHRH and JC21LHRH) were designed to target luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone receptors (LHRH-R). Our results indicate that human prostate cancer cell lines were sensitive to both LHRH-conjugated and non-conjugated lytic peptides, with IC50 concentrations for LNCaP cells, 4.4 and 9.1 µM; for DU-145 cells, 4.8 and 5.7 µM; and for PC-3 cells, 4.4 and 8.2 µM, respectively. JCHLHRH and JC21LHRH were nontoxic to normal primary human prostate epithelial cells or to bone marrow stromal cells in co-culture. There were morphological changes in PC-3 cells after 3 hr of exposure to either peptide; after 6 hr, there were significant reductions in cell numbers. Exposure of PC-3 cells for 24 hr to either JCHLHRH or JC21LHRH blocked their growth over 3 days. Since JCHLHRH and JC21LHRH have specificity for and anti-proliferative activity against tumor cells, and low toxicity for normal prostate cells, these peptides could serve as a new type of therapy for prostate cancer.
Lytic Peptides; Prostate Cancer; Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone; Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Receptors; Chemotherapy
A study was conducted of the response of the pituitary-testicular axis to two different methods of administration of the luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue ICI 118630 (Zoladex) in patients with prostatic cancer. The analogue was given by continuous infusion to four previously untreated patients with prostatic cancer for 60 days (group 1). Subsequently a further four patients were given a depot formulation of the same analogue by subcutaneous injection once every 28 days (group 2). Both methods of administration produced similar, successful suppression of luteinising hormone (LH) associated with a reduction of testosterone to castrate concentrations. The median basal testosterone concentrations before treatment in groups 1 and 2 were 20.6 and 14.1 nmol/l (5.94 and 4.07 ng/ml) respectively; these were reduced to 1.4 and 1.1 nmol/l (0.40 and 0.32 ng/ml) within four weeks of the start of treatment. The median basal LH concentration in groups 1 and 2 were 7.9 and 16.6 IU/1 respectively, which were suppressed to 2.6 and 2.4 IU/1 by four weeks. The suppression of LH and testosterone was maintained with continuous subcutaneous infusion for up to 60 days in group 1, and by subsequent injections of the depot every 28 days in group 2. The use of depot preparation of an LHRH analogue to suppress gonadotrophin and sex hormone secretion offers the convenience of once monthly injections when LHRH analogues are required for the long term treatment of elderly patients with prostatic cancer and children with precocious puberty.
Background. Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer are endocrinologically treated with LHRH agonist, but finally castration-refractory and hormone-refractory cancers occur. Serum testosterone levels get low to “the castration level” by LHRH agonists but may not get low enough against castration-refractory prostate cancer. Methods. As case series, twelve patients suffering from hormone-refractory prostate cancer continuously on LHRH agonist underwent surgical castration. Additionally, one hundred and thirty-nine prostate cancer patients on LHRH agonist or surgical castration were tested for serum total testosterone levels. Results. Surgical castration caused decrease in serum PSA in one out of 12 hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with PSA reduction rate 74%. Serum total testosterone levels were below the sensitivity threshold (0.05 ng/mL) in 40 of 89 (44.9%) medically castrated patients and 33 of 50 (66.0%) surgically castrated patients (P = .20). Conclusion. Even hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients are candidates for surgical castration because of endocrinological, oncological, and economical reasons.
Advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) no longer amenable to surgery or radiotherapy is a life-threatening disease with limited therapeutic options left. Eighty percent of ECs express receptors for luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH), which can be targeted by AEZS-108 (zoptarelin doxorubicin acetate). This phase 2 trial was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of AEZS-108 in this group of patients.
Patients had FIGO (Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d’Obstétrique) III or IV or recurrent EC, LHRH receptor–positive tumor status, and at least had 1 measurable lesion (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Prior anthracycline therapy was not allowed. Patients received AEZS-108 as a 2-hour infusion on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The treatment was continued for a maximum of 6 to 8 cycles. The primary end point was the response rate determined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.
From April 2008 to November 2009, 44 patients were included in the study at 8 centers in Germany (AGO) and 3 centers in Bulgaria. Forty-three of these patients were eligible. Two (5%) patients had a complete remission, and 8 (18%) achieved a partial remission. Stable disease for at least 6 weeks was observed in 44%. The median time to progression was 7 months, and the median overall survival was 15 months. The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 adverse effects were neutropenia (12%) and leucopenia (9%).
AEZS-108, an LHRH-agonist coupled to doxorubicin, has significant activity and low toxicity in women with advanced or recurrent LHRH receptor–positive EC, supporting the principle of receptor-mediated targeted chemotherapy.
Endometrial cancer; Targeted therapy; LHRH receptor; Clinical trial; Phase 2