Improved Outcomes with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2. METHODS: For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL). RESULTS: Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for ovarian function suppression in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a retrospective single-center real-world study.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of ovarian function suppression (OFS) of various gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) combined with aromatase inhibitors (AI) in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) breast cancer. Potential risk factors associated with insufficient OFS were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Premenopausal HR-positive breast cancer patients who had received AI with GnRHa were studied retrospectively. Patients were divided into different groups according to monthly or trimonthly GnRHa schedules they received, and the effectiveness of OFS was compared between groups. Insufficient OFS was defined as at least one instance of estradiol ≥ 30 pg/ml. Patient data was gathered from medical records for this comparison. RESULTS: Of the 264 patients enrolled in this study, 117 were administered 3.6 mg of goserelin monthly (goserelin 1 M group), 63 received 3.75 mg of leuprorelin monthly (leuprorelin 1 M group) and 84 were given 11.25 mg of leuprorelin every three months (leuprorelin 3 M group). Overall, 7.20% experienced insufficient OFS. The incidence rates in the three GnRHa depot groups were 7.69%, 6.35%, and 7.14%, respectively, without a significant statistical difference (P = 0.900). Notably, younger patients exhibited a higher likelihood of insufficient OFS [OR = 0.900, 95%CI (0.824-0.982), P = 0.018]. CONCLUSION: Insufficient OFS remains a concern during GnRHa and AI treatment. The effectiveness of the three GnRHa depots commonly used in China seems comparable. Younger patients face a heightened risk of insufficient OFS.

Efficacy of leuprorelin in spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy: a 3-year observational study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the long-term effects and functional outcomes of androgen suppression therapy using leuprorelin among Korean patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA). METHODS: This observational study enrolled patients with genetically confirmed SBMA who provided informed consent. Leuprorelin was administered via subcutaneous injection every 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the change in total Spinal and Bulbar Muscular Atrophy Functional Rating Scale (SBMAFRS) scores. RESULTS: A total of 48 SBMA patients were evaluated in this study. Among them, 39 patients underwent androgen suppression therapy over a 3-year period. The total SBMAFRS score decreased from 41.72 ± 5.55 to 36.74 ± 7.74 (p < 0.001) in patients who completed their treatment. The subgroup with a baseline SBMAFRS score of ≥ 42 had a significantly lower decline in SBMAFRS score than did those with a baseline SBMAFRS score of ≤ 41. We determined that at a baseline, SBMAFRS cutoff value of 41.5 could predict good prognosis, with a corresponding area under the curve of 0.689. CONCLUSION: Despite androgen suppression therapy, all enrolled participants exhibited a decrease in the overall SBMAFRS score. However, those with a baseline SBMAFRS of ≥ 42 showed a mild decrease in scores, indicating a more favorable prognosis. These findings suggest that a higher baseline motor function was a key prognostic indicator in SBMA treatment and that initiating early leuprorelin treatment in patients with high baseline function may lead to good clinical outcomes.

The Effect of Hormonal Treatment on Ovarian Endometriomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of hormonal suppression of endometriosis on the size of endometriotic ovarian cysts. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2012 to December 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies of premenopausal women undergoing hormonal treatment of endometriosis for ≥3 months. The authors excluded studies involving surgical intervention in the follow-up period and those using hormones to prevent endometrioma recurrence after endometriosis surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022385612). TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The primary outcome was the mean change in endometrioma volume, expressed as a percentage, from baseline to at least 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the change in volume at 3 months and analyses by class of hormonal therapy. The authors included 16 studies (15 cohort studies, 1 randomized controlled trial) of 888 patients treated with dienogest (7 studies), other progestins (4), combined hormonal contraceptives (2), and other suppressive therapy (3). Globally, the decrease in endometrioma volume became statistically significant at 6 months with a mean reduction of 55% (95% confidence interval, -40 to -71; 18 treatment groups; 730 patients; p <.001; I2 = 96%). The reduction was the greatest with dienogest and norethindrone acetate plus letrozole, followed by relugolix and leuprolide acetate. The volume reduction was not statistically significant with combined hormonal contraceptives or other progestins. There was high heterogeneity, and studies were at risk of selection bias. CONCLUSION: Hormonal suppression can substantially reduce endometrioma size, but there is uncertainty in the exact reduction patients may experience.

Central precocious puberty secondary to postoperative craniopharyngioma: two case reports and a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Craniopharyngioma is a common intracranial tumour in children. Clinical manifestations are related to hypothalamic/pituitary deficiencies, visual impairment, and increased intracranial pressure. Defects in pituitary function cause shortages of growth hormone, gonadotropin, corticotropin, thyrotropin, and vasopressin, resulting in short stature, delayed puberty, feebleness, lethargy, polyuria, etc. However, manifestations involving precocious puberty (PP) are rare. CASE REPORT: In both patients, surgical resection was performed after the diagnosis of craniopharyngioma, and breast development occurred postoperatively at one month in one patient and at one year and three months in the other patient. Central precocious puberty (CPP) was diagnosed via relevant examinations. Leuprorelin was injected subcutaneously every 28 days, and changes in height, weight, bone age, gonadal ultrasound and sex hormones were recorded. During the follow-up of the two children, the sex hormone levels were significantly reduced, and significant acceleration in bone age was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: CPP was induced by craniopharyngioma surgery, and treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) inhibited sexual development and bone age progression. More attention should be given to monitoring for CPP during long-term follow-up of craniopharyngiomas in the clinic.

Oral Relugolix for Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Injectable luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (e.g., leuprolide) are the standard agents for achieving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer despite the initial testosterone surge and delay in therapeutic effect. The efficacy and safety of relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, as compared with those of leuprolide are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with advanced prostate cancer, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive relugolix (120 mg orally once daily) or leuprolide (injections every 3 months) for 48 weeks. The primary end point was sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng per deciliter) through 48 weeks. Secondary end points included noninferiority with respect to the primary end point, castrate levels of testosterone on day 4, and profound castrate levels (<20 ng per deciliter) on day 15. Testosterone recovery was evaluated in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients received relugolix and 308 received leuprolide. Of men who received relugolix, 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9 to 97.9) maintained castration through 48 weeks, as compared with 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) of men receiving leuprolide. The difference of 7.9 percentage points (95% CI, 4.1 to 11.8) showed noninferiority and superiority of relugolix (P<0.001 for superiority). All other key secondary end points showed superiority of relugolix over leuprolide (P<0.001). The percentage of patients with castrate levels of testosterone on day 4 was 56.0% with relugolix and 0% with leuprolide. In the subgroup of 184 patients followed for testosterone recovery, the mean testosterone levels 90 days after treatment discontinuation were 288.4 ng per deciliter in the relugolix group and 58.6 ng per deciliter in the leuprolide group. Among all the patients, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.9% in the relugolix group and 6.2% in the leuprolide group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving men with advanced prostate cancer, relugolix achieved rapid, sustained suppression of testosterone levels that was superior to that with leuprolide, with a 54% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by Myovant Sciences; HERO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03085095.).

Comparison of goserelin and leuprorelin for ovarian protection during chemotherapy in young patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Although different gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may have different effects, their effect of ovarian protection during chemotherapy for breast cancer has not been compared. This study aimed to compare the effects of goserelin and leuprorelin for ovarian protection during chemotherapy in young patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This prospective study analyzed 193 patients with breast cancer aged ≤ 40 years who had regular menstruation and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels ≥ 1 ng/mL before treatment. Patients received either goserelin or leuprorelin for ovarian protection during doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Resumption of menstruation and changes in serum levels of AMH were compared between the two groups at 12 months after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The mean age and the pretreatment serum AMH level were 33.2 years and 4.4 ng/mL in goserelin group and 34.2 years and 4.0 ng/mL in leuprorelin group. The proportion of patients who resumed menstruation was not different between the goserelin (94.4%) and leuprorelin (95.3%) groups at 12 months after chemotherapy completion. Serum AMH levels decreased significantly in both the goserelin (from 4.4 to 1.2 ng/mL) and leuprorelin (from 4.0 to 1.2 ng/mL) groups, with no statistical significance. In addition, no difference was found in the proportion of patients with serum AMH levels ≥ 1 ng/mL between the goserelin (49.5%) and leuprorelin (44.2%) groups at 12 months after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Goserelin and leuprorelin were comparable in terms of ovarian protection during doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in young patients with breast cancer.

LBA02-09 EMBARK: A Phase 3 Randomized Study of Enzalutamide or Placebo Plus Leuprolide Acetate and Enzalutamide Monotherapy in High-risk Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Volume 209, Supplement 4, Page e1190: The abstract text is as given below. This erratum also includes the additional disclosure, conflict of interest, and acknowledgments that were not included in the original publication. The online and PDF versions of the article have been updated. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Within 10 years following definitive therapy for prostate cancer, ∼20-50% of patients (pts) experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) characterized by rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Pts with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of mortality and improved therapies are needed. The objective of EMBARK was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide (enza) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and enza monotherapy (mono) in pts with high-risk BCR. METHODS: EMBARK is a randomized, phase 3 study of pts with BCR considered high-risk: PSA doubling time ≤9 months and PSA ≥2 ng/mL above nadir post-radiotherapy (RT) or ≥1 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative RT. Pts were randomized (1:1:1) to enza 160 mg/day + leuprolide acetate (LA) (double-blind), placebo (pbo) + LA (double-blind), or enza mono (open-label). LA 22.5 mg was administered every 12 weeks. If the PSA at week 36 was <0.2 ng/mL, therapy was stopped at week 37 and restarted when PSA was ≥2 ng/mL for pts with primary RP, and ≥5 ng/mL for pts without RP. The primary endpoint, determined by blinded, independent central review (BICR), was metastasis-free survival (MFS) with enza + LA vs pbo + LA. Key secondary endpoints were MFS of enza mono vs pbo + LA, time to PSA progression, time to antineoplastic therapy, and overall survival (OS) of enza + LA or enza mono vs pbo + LA. RESULTS: 1068 pts were randomized into the study (enza + LA, n=355; pbo + LA, n=358; enza mono, n=355). After median follow-up of 60.7 months, per BICR, MFS for enza + LA (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.61; p<0.0001) and enza mono (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.87; p=0.0049) were statistically superior to pbo + LA. Statistically significant improvements were also observed in risk of PSA progression (enza + LA: HR 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.14; enza mono: HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; both p<0.0001) and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy (enza + LA: HR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.49; enza mono: HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; both p<0.0001). Interim OS data trended in favor enza + LA (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; p=0.0153, did not cross interim efficacy boundary) and enza mono (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.17; p=0.2304). Fatigue and hot flash were the most common adverse events; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In pts with high-risk BCR, enza + ADT and enza mono demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in MFS vs pbo + ADT. The safety profile of enza was consistent with results from previous clinical studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319837. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Pfizer Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc.Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Statement:Neal D. Shore reports grant support and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon Pharmaceuticals LLC, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenesisCare, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Genzyme, and Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Murilo de Almeida Luz reports receiving speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer Inc.; being an advisory board member for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, and Janssen; sponsored research from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Roche; receiving travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer Inc. Ugo De Giorgi reports serving as a consultant for Janssen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Sanofi, Bayer, Pfizer Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Martin Gleave reports stock or ownership interest in OncoGenex Technologies Inc., Sustained Therapeutics Inc., and Sikta Biopharma; is a consultant to Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genova Diagnostics (GDx), Janssen, Pfizer Inc., Roche, Sanofi, and TerSera Therapeutics LLC; and holds patents for OGX-011, OGX-427, ST-CP, and ST-POP. Geoffrey T. Gotto reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Merck; being a consultant or advisory board member for Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, and Merck; providing expert testimony for Janssen; and receiving support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Janssen. Gabriel P. Haas reports being an employee of and shareholder in Astellas Pharma Inc. Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus reports serving as a consultant or advisory board member for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, and Karl Storz; receiving speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, and GP Pharm. Antti Rannikko reports being a board member for the Ida Montin Foundation, and Orion Research Foundation; being an advisory board member for Bayer, Janssen, and Orion Pharma; being a stockholder and clinical advisor for Aqsens Health; being a clinical investigator for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, Orion Pharma, and RhoVac AB; and receiving competitive state research funding from HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Finnish Cancer Organizations, and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Jamal Tazari, Yiyun Tang, and Fabian Zohren are employees of and shareholders in Pfizer Inc. Swetha Sridharan reports no conflicts of interest. Jennifer Sugg is an employee of Astellas Pharma Inc., and a shareholder in AstraZeneca. Ronald F. Tutrone, Jr. reports being an advisory board member for Bayer; and receiving speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma Inc., Exosome Diagnostics, Inc., Myovant Sciences, and Pfizer Inc. Balaji Venugopal reports receiving honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai Co., Ltd, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen, and Merck; being a consultant or advisory board member for Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, and Pfizer Inc./EMD Serono; and receiving support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from EUSA Pharma, and Ipsen. Arnauld Villers reports receiving research grants from Astellas Pharma Inc., Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, and Janssen. Henry H. Woo reports being an advisory board member for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Mundipharma International Ltd; and reports receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Astellas Pharma Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation, and Janssen. Stephen J. Freedland reports being a consultant for Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon Pharmaceuticals LLC, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors thank all the patients, their families, and the investigators and investigational site members involved in this study.Editorial Acknowledgement:Medical writing and editorial support was provided by Julie B. Stimmel, PhD, Sinead Stewart, and Rosie Henderson, of Onyx (a Prime Global Agency), funded by Pfizer, Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc., the co-developers of enzalutamide.Submission Category:prostate cancer.Sub-category:Advanced (including drug therapy).

Androgen-deprivation therapy with leuprolide increases abdominal adiposity without causing cardiac dysfunction in middle-aged male mice: effect of sildenafil.

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the primary systemic therapy for treating advanced or metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), which has improved survival outcomes in patients with PCa. However, ADT may develop metabolic and cardiovascular adverse events that impact the quality of life and lifespan in PCa survivors. The present study was designed to establish a murine model of ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist leuprolide and to investigate its effects on metabolism and cardiac function. We also examined the potential cardioprotective role of sildenafil (inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 5) under chronic ADT. Middle-aged male C57BL/6J mice received a 12-wk subcutaneous infusion via osmotic minipumps containing either saline or 18 mg/4 wk leuprolide with or without 1.3 mg/4 wk sildenafil cotreatment. Compared with saline controls, leuprolide treatment significantly reduced prostate weight and serum testosterone levels, confirming chemical castration in these mice. The ADT-induced chemical castration was not affected by sildenafil. Leuprolide significantly increased the weight of abdominal fat after 12-wk treatment without a change in total body weight, and sildenafil did not block the proadipogenic effect of leuprolide. No signs of left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction were observed throughout the leuprolide treatment period. Interestingly, leuprolide treatment significantly elevated serum levels of cardiac troponin I (cTn-I), a biomarker of cardiac injury, and sildenafil did not abolish this effect. We conclude that long-term ADT with leuprolide increases abdominal adiposity and cardiac injury biomarker without cardiac contractile dysfunction. Sildenafil did not prevent ADT-associated adverse changes.

Cannabidiol as a potential novel treatment for endometriosis by its anti-inflammatory, antioxidative and antiangiogenic effects in an experimental rat model.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can cannabidiol (CBD) be used in the treatment of endometriosis for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidative and antiangiogenic effects? DESIGN: Endometrial implants were surgically induced in 36 female Wistar albino rats. After confirmation of endometriotic foci, the rats were randomized into four groups. In the leuprolide acetate group, rats were given a single 1 mg/kg s.c. leuprolide acetate injection. The other groups were 5 mg/kg CBD (CBD5), saline solution and 20 mg/kg CBD (CBD20); daily i.p. injections were administered for 7 days. After 21 days, the rats were euthanised, and total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), oxidative stress index (OSI), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) measurements in blood and peritoneal fluid samples, and immunohistochemical staining for TNF-α, IL-6 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) of endometriotic tissues were evaluated. RESULTS: Significant reductions in the endometriotic implant surface area (P = 0.0213), serum TOS (P = 0.0491), OSI (P = 0.0056), IL-6 (P = 0.0236), TNF-α (P = 0.0083) and peritoneal fluid OSI (P = 0.0401), IL-6 (P = 0.0205) and TNF-α (P = 0.0045) concentrations were observed in the CBD5 group when compared with the saline solution group. Compared with the saline solution group, increased TAS concentrations in serum (P = 0.0012) and peritoneal fluid (P = 0.0145) were found in the CBD5 group. The CBD5 and leuprolide acetate groups were similar regarding inflammatory and oxidative stress parameters of serum and peritoneal fluid samples. The CBD5 group showed significantly lower mean intensity in both surface epithelium and stromal cells for VEGF (both P = 0.002) and only in surface epithelium cells for IL-6 (P = 0.0108), when compared with the leuprolide acetate group. CONCLUSION: Due to its anti-inflammatory, antioxidative and antiangiogenic effects, CBD might be a therapeutic agent candidate for endometriosis.

Clinical outcomes of leuprolide acetate in the treatment of recurrent ovarian granulosa cell tumors.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of recurrent ovarian granulosa cell tumors is not known. Preclinical studies and small case series have suggested direct antitumor activity of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in the treatment of this disease, but little is known about the efficacy and safety of this approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe patterns of use and clinical outcomes of leuprolide acetate in a cohort of patients with recurrent granulosa cell tumors. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in the Rare Gynecologic Malignancy Registry at a large cancer referral center and affiliated county hospital. Patients meeting inclusion criteria had a diagnosis of recurrent granulosa cell tumor and received either leuprolide acetate or traditional chemotherapy as cancer treatment. Outcomes were separately examined for leuprolide acetate used as adjuvant treatment, maintenance therapy, and the treatment of gross disease. Demographic and clinical data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Progression-free survival was calculated from the initiation of treatment to the date of disease progression or death, and compared between groups with the log-rank test. The 6-month clinical benefit rate was defined as the percentage of patients without disease progression 6 months after starting therapy. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received a total of 78 leuprolide acetate-containing therapy courses, owing to 16 instances of retreatment. Of these 78 courses, 57 (73%) were for treatment of gross disease, 10 (13%) were adjuvant to tumor reductive surgery, and 11 (14%) were for maintenance therapy. Patients had received a median of 2 (interquartile range, 1-3) systemic therapy regimens before their first leuprolide acetate treatment. Tumor reductive surgery (100% [62/62]) and platinum-based chemotherapy (81% [50/62]) were common before first leuprolide acetate exposure. The median duration of leuprolide acetate therapy was 9.6 months (interquartile range, 4.8-16.5). Nearly half of the therapy courses were single-agent leuprolide acetate (49% [38/78]). Combination regimens most often included an aromatase inhibitor (23% [18/78]). Disease progression was the most common cause of discontinuation (77% [60/78]); only 1 patient (1%) discontinued leuprolide acetate because of adverse events. In the treatment of gross disease, the 6-month clinical benefit rate for first use of leuprolide acetate was 66% (95% confidence interval, 54-82). Median progression-free survival was not statistically different compared with that which followed chemotherapy (10.3 months [95% confidence interval, 8.0-16.0] vs 8.0 months [95% confidence interval, 5.0-15.3]; P=.3). CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with recurrent granulosa cell tumors, the 6-month clinical benefit rate of first-time leuprolide acetate treatment of gross disease was 66% and progression-free survival was comparable to patients treated with chemotherapy. Leuprolide acetate regimens were heterogeneous, but significant toxicity was rare. These results support leuprolide acetate as safe and effective for the treatment of relapsed adult granulosa cell tumors in the second line and beyond.

MED12 mutations in uterine leiomyomas: prediction of volume reduction by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists are used to treat premenopausal uterine leiomyomas; however, leiomyoma volume reduction is not always achieved. The reduction rate after this treatment varies for each leiomyoma, even in the same patient. Therefore, an effective method for predicting uterine leiomyoma volume reduction is required to reduce the adverse hypoestrogenic effects and drug-related economic burden related to gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the predictive use of MED12 mutations for evaluating the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment concerning reducing uterine leiomyoma volume and to predict the MED12 mutation status based on the findings of magnetic resonance imaging performed before treatment. STUDY DESIGN: MED12 exon 2 mutation and erythropoietin expression in uterine leiomyomas were evaluated concerning volume reduction, as measured using magnetic resonance imaging. We developed a system for classifying leiomyomas according to T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging signals to noninvasively predict the presence or absence of MED12 mutations in leiomyomas. Leiomyoma samples (>5 cm) were obtained from 168 patients during surgery (hysterectomy or myomectomy) between 2005 and 2021 at Yokohama City University Hospital. To analyze the rate of leiomyoma volume reduction, 41 patients had been preoperatively administered the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (leuprorelin acetate 3.75 mg, monthly subcutaneous injection) for 3 months; magnetic resonance imaging was performed before and after treatment without contrast material. RESULTS: Patients with MED12 exon 2 mutations had smaller volume reduction after treatment with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (P<.001, Mann-Whitney U test) and displayed lower signal intensity on T2-weighted images than those with leiomyomas expressing wild-type MED12 exon 2. The newly proposed magnetic resonance imaging-based classification system showed that MED12 exon 2 mutations were more frequent in the low-signal group than in the high-signal group, with nearly equal proportions of mutated and wild-type MED12 exon 2 leiomyomas noted in the intermediate group. The low-signal group had significantly lower erythropoietin expression levels than the high-signal group (P<.001, Kruskal-Wallis test with the Dunn posthoc analysis). CONCLUSION: MED12 mutation status can be a candidate marker for predicting the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists on uterine leiomyoma reduction. Magnetic resonance imaging findings can be used to determine MED12 mutation status as a noninvasive strategy to select patients who will most likely benefit from gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment.

Effect of Leuprolide Acetate, a GnRH Agonist, on Neuroinflammation and Anxiety-Like Behavior after Mild Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy in Rat Model.

BACKGROUND: Mild hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) is a condition that predisposes to negative outcomes such as neuroanatomical injury, mood disorders, and motor or cognitive disabilities. The neuroinflammation plays an important role in the neurological damage; therefore, reducing it could provide neuroprotection. The leuprolide acetate (LA) has shown to have neuroregenerative and immunomodulator properties in other nervous system injuries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the immunomodulatory effect of LA in the acute phase of mild HIE and its effects in motor activity and behavior in a subacute phase. METHOD: Forty-five Wistar rats on postnatal day 7 were divided into Sham, HIE treated with saline solution (HIE-SS), and HIE-LA. The HIE was performed cutting of the right carotid artery followed by 60 min of hypoxia. The expression of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-1ß, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interferon (IFN)-γ, and the chemokine CXCL-1 were evaluated 72 h after HIE by RT-qPCR and the motor activity and behavior were evaluated by open field test at postnatal day 33. RESULTS: HIE-SS animals showed increased expression of IL-1ß, TNF-α, IFN-γ, and CXCL-1 genes in injured tissue. However, the HIE-LA group exhibited similar expression levels of IL-1ß and TNF-α to the Sham group, while IFN-γ and CXCL-1 mRNA expression were attenuated with LA treatment. LA treatment also prevented anxiety-like behavior in the open field test. CONCLUSION: Treatment with LA partially reverses HIE-induced neuroinflammation and prevents anxiety-like behavior in neonatal rats.

Ultra-low-dose and very-low-dose Lupron downregulation protocols for poor responders based on POSEIDON group 3 and 4 classifications.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess if very-low-dose Lupron (VLDL) and ultra-low-dose Lupron (ULDL) protocols can have comparable cycle outcomes when compared to other "poor responder" stimulation protocols based on POSEIDON classification groups 3 (PG3) and 4 (PG4). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study at a single, large academic center was performed. Women in PG3 (age < 35, AMH < 1.2 ng/mL) or PG4 (age ≥ 35, AMH < 1.2 ng/mL) undergoing in vitro fertilization using an ULDL (Lupron 0.1 to 0.05 mg daily), VLDL (Lupron 0.2 to 0.1 mg daily), microflare (Lupron 0.05 mg twice a day), estradiol priming/antagonist, antagonist, or minimal stimulation protocols from 2012 to 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes (MII) obtained. The secondary outcome was live birth rate (LBR). RESULTS: The cohort included 3601 cycles. The mean age was 38.1 ± 3.8 years. In the PG3 group, ULDL and VLDL protocols produced a comparable number of MIIs (5.8 ± 4.3 and 5.9 ± 5.4, respectively) and live births (33.3% and 33.3%, respectively) when compared to other protocols. In the PG4 group, ULDL and VLDL protocols resulted in a higher percentage of MIIs when compared to microflare or minimal stimulation (Microflare/ULDL: adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.65, 0.95); min stim/ULDL: aRR 0.47 (95% CI 0.38, 0.58); microflare/VLDL: aRR 0.77 (95% CI 0.63, 0.95); min stim/VLDL: aRR 0.47 (95% CI 0.38, 0.95)). There were no significant differences in LBR. CONCLUSION: Dilute Lupron downregulation protocols have comparable outcomes to other poor responder protocols and are reasonable to use.

Evaluation of safety and effectiveness of gestrinone in the treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Endometriosis is a common chronic gynecological disease defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma tissue outside the uterus. Gestrinone is an effective antiestrogen that induces endometrial atrophy and/or amenorrhea. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an evaluation of safety and effectiveness of gestrinone for the treatment of endometriosis. METHODS: We performed a search in six electronic databases: PubMed, MEDLINE (ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL (clinical trials), Web of Science and Scopus. Our selected primary outcomes were the changes in dysmenorrhea, pain relief including pelvic pain and dyspareunia. The secondary outcomes embrace hormones parameters, pregnancy rate and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3269 references screened, 16 studies were included involving 1286 women. All studies compared gestrinone with other drugs treatments (placebo, Danazol, Mifepristone tablets, Leuprolide acetate, Quyu Jiedu Recipe) during 6 months. When compared with other drugs treatments, gestrinone relieved dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and morphologic response in the ovary. There was an increase on the pregnancy rate. Regarding the side effects observed, gestrinone showed the same adverse events and increased the risk of acne and seborrhea when compared to other treatments. Even if there was any difference in efficacy between gestrinone, danazol, leuprolide acetate, or Quyu Jiedu Recipe Chinese Medicine, it remains unclear due to insufficient data. CONCLUSION: Based limited evidence available suggests that gestrinone appeared to be safe and may have some efficacy advantages over danazol, as well as other therapeutic interventions for treating endometriosis. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution, due the quality of the evidence provided is generally very low or unclear. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42021284148.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of androgen deprivation therapy with relugolix for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Relugolix treatment of advanced prostate cancer (APC), like other gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonists, results in rapid decrease in testosterone concentrations without the risk of flare, as seen in leuprolide. Despite this benefit over leuprolide, no economic evaluation assessment to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of relugolix has been conducted. Therefore, this study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with 120 mg relugolix against 7.5 mg leuprolide for the treatment of APC. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess and compare the costs of APC treatment from a health care payer's perspective and the effectiveness of ADT with relugolix and leuprolide at the 3 lines of APC treatment among modified intent-to-treat patients. Relative progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated. Outcomes measured in the analyses included costs of the drugs and therapies, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness acceptability, and probability curves. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed the ICER for ADT with relugolix to be US $49,571.1 per QALY. At the ICER value, the sensitivity analysis indicated that ADT with leuprolide was dominant in 100% of the simulations. ADT acceptance with relugolix was 100% when a willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US $100,000/QALY. At 5-years, the relative PFS and OS rates for relugolix at the first line of therapy were 72.7% and 86.0%, respectively, compared to 61.0% and 85.90% for leuprolide. CONCLUSION: Though the influence of adverse events was not considered in the analysis, ADT with relugolix was not a cost-effective choice for APC management. While the analysis revealed a slight chance of sustaining testosterone suppression with relugolix, ADT with relugolix provided no significant survival advantages over ADT with leuprolide. Therefore, this analysis confirms no need for further assessment of APC interventions to make informed decisions beneficial to the APC patients, oncologists, and other stakeholders.

The Finding of New In Vivo Metabolite Triptorelin (5-10) in Human Urine Using Liquid Chromatography Coupled with Ion Trap/Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry with Dimethyl Sulfoxide Additives in the Mobile Phase.

Triptorelin and leuprorelin are synthetic gonadotrophin-releasing hormones (GnRH) that are on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list of prohibited substances. To investigate the possible in vivo metabolites of triptorelin and leuprorelin in humans compared to previously reported in vitro metabolites, excreted urine from five patients treated with either triptorelin or leuprorelin was analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled with ion trap/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC/MS-IT-TOF). The addition of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) to the mobile phase was found to enhance the detection sensitivity of certain GnRH analogs. The method was validated, and the limit of detection (LOD) was found at 0.02-0.08 ng/mL. Using this method, a novel new metabolite of triptorelin was discovered in the urine of all subjects up to 1 month after triptorelin administration, but it was not observed in the urine of subjects before drug administration. The limit of detection was estimated to be 0.05 ng/mL. The structure of the metabolite, triptorelin (5-10), is proposed from bottom-up mass spectrometry analysis. The discovery of in vivo triptorelin (5-10) can possibly be used as supporting evidence of triptorelin misuse in athletes.

Safety, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Teverelix for the Treatment of Hormone-Sensitive Advanced Prostate Cancer: Phase 2 Loading-Dose-Finding Studies.

Background and objectives: Teverelix drug product (DP) is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in development for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer in whom androgen deprivation therapy is indicated. The aim of this paper is to present the results of five Phase 2 studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of different loading dose regimens of teverelix DP. Methods: Five single-arm, uncontrolled clinical trials were conducted in patients with advanced prostate cancer. The five different loading dose regimens of teverelix DP tested were (a) a single 90 mg subcutaneous (SC) injection of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2); (b) a single 90 mg intramuscular (IM) injection of teverelix DP given 7 days apart (Days 0 and 7); (c) a single 120 mg SC injection of teverelix DP given on 2 consecutive days (Days 0 and 1); (d) 2 × 60 mg SC injections of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2), and (e) 2 × 90 mg SC injections of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2). The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of action of an initial loading dose regimen in terms of suppression of testosterone to below the castration level (0.5 ng/mL). Results: Eighty-two patients were treated with teverelix DP. Two regimens (90 mg and 180 mg SC on 3 consecutive days) had a mean duration of castration of 55.32 days and 68.95 days with >90% of patients having testosterone levels < 0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The mean onset of castration for the SC regimens ranged from 1.10 to 1.77 days, while it was slower (2.4 days) with IM administration. The most common adverse event (AE) was injection site reaction. No AEs of severe intensity were reported. Conclusions: Teverelix DP is safe and well tolerated. Castrate levels of testosterone can be rapidly achieved following the subcutaneous injection of teverelix DP on 3 consecutive days. Streamlining of the administration of the loading dose and identifying a suitable maintenance dose will be investigated in future trials.

Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Prostate Cancer: The Primary Results of the PRONOUNCE Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative cardiovascular safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with GnRH agonists in men with prostate cancer and known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains controversial. METHODS: In this international, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial, men with prostate cancer and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide for 12 months. The primary outcome was the time to first adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) through 12 months. RESULTS: Because of slower-than-projected enrollment and fewer-than-projected primary outcome events, enrollment was stopped before the 900 planned participants were accrued. From May 3, 2016, to April 16, 2020, a total of 545 patients from 113 sites across 12 countries were randomly selected. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. The median age was 73 years, 49.8% had localized prostate cancer; 26.3% had locally advanced disease, and 20.4% had metastatic disease. A major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 15 (5.5%) patients assigned to degarelix and 11 (4.1%) patients assigned to leuprolide (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.59-2.79]; P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: PRONOUNCE (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease) is the first, international, randomized clinical trial to prospectively compare the cardiovascular safety of a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist in patients with prostate cancer. The study was terminated prematurely because of the smaller than planned number of participants and events, and no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year between patients assigned to degarelix or leuprolide was observed. The relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH antagonists and agonists remains unresolved. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02663908.