摘要
Aim： To evaluate the long-term effectiveness, side effects and compliance rates of two types of drugs （luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonist and antiandrogen） that were used individually to treat patients with localized prostate cancer （T1-2） at our institution. Methods： Ninety-seven patients who were diagnosed in the period from April 1997 to January 2000 as having clinically localized prostate cancer （T1-2） received either LHRH agonist （leuprolide acetate 7.5 mg/month） monotherapy （group 1, n = 62） or antiandrogen monotherapy （group 2, n = 35; 18 received bicalutamide 50 mg q.d., 13 received nilutamide 150 mg t.i.d, and 4 received flutamide 250 mg t.i.d.）. The mean age in both groups was 76 years. Results： The mean follow-up time was （50.8 ±8.5） months in group 1 and （43.1 ± 2.2） months in group 2. Prostate-specific antigen （PSA） levels rose in only 1 of the 62 patients （1.6%） in group 1, and in 20 of the 35 patients （57.1%） in group 2. In group 2, 10 of the 20 patients （50 %） with increasing PSA levels were treated with LHRH salvage therapy, and eight （80%） responded. Hot flashes （54.8%） and lethargy （41.9%） were the most common side effects in group 1. In contrast, nipple-tenderness （40%） and light-dark adaptation （17.1%） were more often seen in group 2. Only 1 of the 62 patients （1.6%） in group 1 switched to another medication because of adverse side effects; whereas 8 of the 35 patients （22.9%） in group 2 did so. Conclusion： Unlike antiandrogen monotherapy, LHRH agonist monotherapy provided long-term durable control of localized prostate cancer （T1-2）. It can also be an effective treatment option for patients whose disease failed to respond to antiandrogen monotherapy. The limitations of our study are the lack of health outcomes analysis and a small sample size.
Aim： To evaluate the long-term effectiveness, side effects and compliance rates of two types of drugs （luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonist and antiandrogen） that were used individually to treat patients with localized prostate cancer （T1-2） at our institution. Methods： Ninety-seven patients who were diagnosed in the period from April 1997 to January 2000 as having clinically localized prostate cancer （T1-2） received either LHRH agonist （leuprolide acetate 7.5 mg/month） monotherapy （group 1, n = 62） or antiandrogen monotherapy （group 2, n = 35; 18 received bicalutamide 50 mg q.d., 13 received nilutamide 150 mg t.i.d, and 4 received flutamide 250 mg t.i.d.）. The mean age in both groups was 76 years. Results： The mean follow-up time was （50.8 ±8.5） months in group 1 and （43.1 ± 2.2） months in group 2. Prostate-specific antigen （PSA） levels rose in only 1 of the 62 patients （1.6%） in group 1, and in 20 of the 35 patients （57.1%） in group 2. In group 2, 10 of the 20 patients （50 %） with increasing PSA levels were treated with LHRH salvage therapy, and eight （80%） responded. Hot flashes （54.8%） and lethargy （41.9%） were the most common side effects in group 1. In contrast, nipple-tenderness （40%） and light-dark adaptation （17.1%） were more often seen in group 2. Only 1 of the 62 patients （1.6%） in group 1 switched to another medication because of adverse side effects; whereas 8 of the 35 patients （22.9%） in group 2 did so. Conclusion： Unlike antiandrogen monotherapy, LHRH agonist monotherapy provided long-term durable control of localized prostate cancer （T1-2）. It can also be an effective treatment option for patients whose disease failed to respond to antiandrogen monotherapy. The limitations of our study are the lack of health outcomes analysis and a small sample size.
