Randomized Comparison of Goserelin Acetate versus Mitomycin C plus Goserelin Acetate in Previously Untreated Prostate Cancer Patients with Bone Metastases

In a prospective trial conducted by the Gruppo Onco Urologico Piemontese, newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients with bone metastases were randomized to receive goserelin (3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or goserelin plus mitomycin at 14 mg/m2 i.v. every 6 weeks. Treatment was planned to be continued until progression. The study was interrupted because of inadequate accrual rate when 63 patients had been recruited. A long-term follow-up (median, 47 months), performed to counterbalance the limited number of patients included, revealed no difference in time to progression and overall survival between the study treatments. However, 56.5% of assessable patients allocated to the chemotherapy arm presented a ≥90% reduction of prostate-specific antigen levels compared with 36.3% in the goserelin group, and previously elevated levels normalized in 73.9% versus 45.4%. Non-progressing patients received 5-7 cycles of mitomycin C with acceptable toxicity, but the cytotoxic treatment was interrupted early in all cases within the first year due to cumulative myelotoxicity. In conclusion, the results, although inconclusive, fail to support a clear advantage in terms of cost/benefit of chemotherapy plus hormone therapy over hormone treatment alone in advanced prostate cancer with bone involvement.

[1]  R. Paridaens,et al.  Interim Results on a Randomized Trial of Mitomycin C in Combination with Orchidectomy for Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Prostate Cancer , 1995, American journal of clinical oncology.

[2]  H. Yamanaka,et al.  Chemo‐endocrine therapy in patients with stage D2 prostate cancer , 1995, The Prostate.

[3]  S. Fosså,et al.  Assessment of quality of life in patients with prostate cancer. , 1994, Seminars in oncology.

[4]  K. Griffiths,et al.  Hormonal treatment of advanced disease: some newer aspects. , 1994, Seminars in oncology.

[5]  B. Redman,et al.  Phase II evaluation of oral estramustine and oral etoposide in hormone-refractory adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  R. Vessella,et al.  Newer applications of serum prostate-specific antigen in the management of prostate cancer. , 1994, Seminars in oncology.

[7]  S. Rosso,et al.  Cancer Incidence in Turin: The Effect of Migration , 1993, Tumori.

[8]  J. Miller,et al.  The clinical usefulness of serum prostate specific antigen after hormonal therapy of metastatic prostate cancer. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[9]  G. Murphy,et al.  A comparison of diethylstilbestrol or orchiectomy with buserelin and with methotrexate plus diethylstilbestrol or orchiectomy in newly diagnosed patients with clinical stage D2 cancer of the prostate , 1988, Cancer.

[10]  T. Guthrie,et al.  Prostate cancer. , 2020, American family physician.

[11]  R. Gibbons Prostate cancer. Chemotherapy , 1987, Cancer.

[12]  R. Priore,et al.  Results of another trial of chemotherapy with and without hormones in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. , 1986, Urology.

[13]  J. Isaacs The timing of androgen ablation therapy and/or chemotherapy in the treatment of prostatic cancer , 1984, The Prostate.

[14]  P. Scardino,et al.  Treatment of newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients with chemotherapy agents in combination with hormones versus hormones alone , 1983, Cancer.

[15]  D. S. Coffey,et al.  Adaptation versus selection as the mechanism responsible for the relapse of prostatic cancer to androgen ablation therapy as studied in the Dunning R-3327-H adenocarcinoma. , 1981, Cancer research.

[16]  R. Melzack The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods , 1975, PAIN.