第二军医大学学报  2016, Vol. 37 Issue (12): 1506-1511   PDF    
GnRH拮抗剂在前列腺癌内分泌治疗中的临床应用和发展前景
施晓磊, 周铁, 礼嵩, 孙颖浩     
第二军医大学长海医院泌尿外科, 上海 200433
摘要: 晚期前列腺癌的一线治疗方案是内分泌治疗,即去除雄激素治疗。目前去除雄激素治疗最常用的药物是促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)激动剂,但其初次使用时可能导致睾酮激增,维持用药时也存在睾酮波动的风险,需要联合应用抗雄激素药物来缓解病情的恶化。研究表明,GnRH拮抗剂也可应用于前列腺癌治疗,且其直接抑制受体活性,不存在诱发睾酮激增的风险。本文综述了GnRH激动剂和GnRH拮抗剂的作用机制、GnRH拮抗剂的发展历史及其在前列腺癌治疗中的临床应用,评价了GnRH拮抗剂的安全性和有效性,揭示了GnRH拮抗剂的临床价值和发展前景。
关键词: 前列腺肿瘤     内分泌治疗     促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂     促进腺激素释放激素激动剂    
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in prostate cancer hormone therapy: clinical application and prospective
SHI Xiao-lei, ZHOU Tie, LI Song, SUN Ying-hao     
Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China
Supported by Major Project of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development (2012ZX09303011-002).
Abstract: Hormone therapy (androgen deprivation therapy, ADT) is the first line treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist is commonly used for ADT, with the risk of flare-up effect at the first dose and testosterone fluctuation, which needs combination of anti-androgen drugs to alleviate the deterioration of the clinical condition. GnRH antagonists directly bind to GnRH receptor, blocking its activity, and they can be used in prostate cancer treatment, without testosterone flare-up effect. This review focused on functional mechanisms of GnRH agonists and antagonists, and history and clinical application of GnRH antagonists, so as to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness of GnRH antagonists and to discuss their clinical value and future prospects.
Key words: prostatic neoplasms     hormone therapy     gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists     gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists    

前列腺癌是男性泌尿生殖系统最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,其在西方国家男性恶性肿瘤疾病中发病率位居第一、死亡率第二[1]。近年来我国的前列腺癌发病率也呈显著的上升趋势。由于前列腺癌症状隐蔽,国内初诊时中晚期患者居多,半数患者确诊时已发生局部进展或远处转移。自从Huggins和Hodges[2]发现去势治疗能够延缓转移性前列腺癌的进展以来,去除雄激素治疗(androgen deprivation therapy,ADT)一直是晚期前列腺癌患者的首选治疗方案[3]。直至上世纪70年代晚期,双侧睾丸切除术仍是ADT最主要的治疗手段。去势手术疗效显著,可使睾酮迅速且持续下降至去势水平,但其易造成患者性功能永久丧失,对患者心理和生理影响很大。因此,以药物去势为主的内分泌治疗得到了广泛关注和迅速发展。目前的前列腺癌内分泌治疗药物包括抗雄激素类、雌激素类和促性腺激素释放激素(gonadotropin-releasing hormone,GnRH)类似物。

GnRH类似物分为GnRH激动剂与GnRH拮抗剂两类。目前在全球范围内已人工合成了6 000余种GnRH激动剂和上百种GnRH拮抗剂,并探索了其在内分泌疾病及前列腺癌治疗方面的潜在药物价值[4]。GnRH激动剂能够抑制雄激素的合成与释放,使睾酮降低至去势水平,达到与手术去势同样的效果,而且没有因手术去势引起的相关心理问题,具有能够灵活调节治疗方案等优势,已逐渐成为内分泌治疗的最常用方法。GnRH拮抗剂同样具有良好的去势效果,可成为潜在的内分泌治疗方案。其中地加瑞克作为目前唯一一种市场上用于前列腺癌治疗的GnRH拮抗剂,有着其独特的临床应用价值和前景。本文综述了GnRH拮抗剂的作用机制、发展历史和地加瑞克的临床应用情况。

1 GnRH类似物的作用机制和特点

GnRH是一类由下丘脑节律性分泌的十肽酰胺,其与垂体前叶G蛋白偶联受体结合,刺激黄体生成素(luteinizing hormone,LH)和卵泡刺激素(follicle-stimulating hormone,FSH)的合成与分泌。这两种激素作用于性腺,促进性激素的产生和配子的形成。血液循环中LH和FSH水平的增高可促使睾丸分泌睾酮,导致睾酮水平升高[5]

1.1 GnRH激动剂

Mcardle等[6]研究表明,给予GnRH激动剂2~3周后,患者体内出现GnRH受体内化、下调和脱敏,进而抑制LH和FSH的释放,促进睾酮下降至去势水平。戈舍瑞林、亮丙瑞林等GnRH激动剂在抑制睾酮水平方面能达到与双侧睾丸切除术治疗相似的效果。但前列腺癌患者在开始应用GnRH激动剂后,睾酮水平会一过性升高,有病情恶化(flare-up)的风险。因此,患者在使用GnRH激动剂之前常口服比卡鲁胺、氟他胺等非甾体抗雄激素药物,以对抗睾酮升高导致的病情加剧[7]。但是对于前列腺癌骨转移有脊髓压迫风险的患者,即使服用抗雄激素药物,患者仍然有周期性睾酮升高和病情加剧的风险。中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南推荐慎用GnRH激动剂,建议选择手术去势的方式[3]

1.2 GnRH拮抗剂

GnRH拮抗剂可以竞争性结合垂体中的GnRH受体,快速抑制内源性GnRH对垂体的兴奋作用,在数小时内直接阻断LH和FSH的分泌,从而迅速地降低睾酮水平且不会出现睾酮一过性的激增现象[8]。不同于GnRH激动剂竞争性抑制LH,GnRH拮抗剂是同时阻断LH和FSH的表达。由于没有LH刺激睾酮的产生,GnRH拮抗剂治疗的结果是睾酮的迅速抑制,同时不会导致下丘脑-垂体-性腺轴的激活。

2 GnRH拮抗剂药物的发展和临床应用

GnRH拮抗剂能够与GnRH受体高度亲和,对垂体-性腺轴具有很强的抑制效应,有望成为更理想的GnRH激动剂替代药物。但由于GnRH拮抗剂存在溶解度低、易形成凝胶及具有组胺释放活性等缺陷,其临床开发较为缓慢。通过对天然GnRH上的氨基酸序列进行修饰,新一代GnRH拮抗剂已逐渐克服了过敏等严重不良反应,正逐步应用于临床[5]

1994年西曲瑞克(cetrorelix)成为第一个进入临床试验阶段的GnRH拮抗剂,临床试验研究证实其安全有效[9]。但随之而来的水肿、过敏等不良事件,以及无法生产长效剂型(1个月剂型)的劣势,导致西曲瑞克未能成功进入市场。其后,阿巴瑞克(abarelix)于2003年被美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准进入市场,是第一种用于治疗晚期前列腺癌的GnRH拮抗剂,其能够达到与亮丙瑞林相似的治疗效果[10]。尽管阿巴瑞克能够迅速高效地降低血清睾酮水平,但是其引起的组胺释放导致超敏反应的不良反应发生率仍然较高(1.1%),在2005年即被FDA撤出美国市场,目前仅部分欧洲国家仍在使用[11],而未进入中国市场。

地加瑞克(degarelix)是FDA于2008年批准的最新一代GnRH拮抗剂,也是目前市场上唯一广泛使用的GnRH拮抗剂。地加瑞克在美国和欧洲上市后的主要适应证是晚期前列腺癌患者的去除雄激素治疗。皮下注射后,地加瑞克会在注射部位形成一个包块,使药物逐渐释放至血液循环中,从而维持长效作用。3项随机开放平行对照的Ⅱ期临床试验对地加瑞克的安全性、有效性和最适剂量进行了评价,结果发现地加瑞克的初始剂量宜为240 mg,此剂量下超过96%的患者的睾酮能在3 d内下降至去势水平,同时结合药物的风险和有效性建议采用80 mg的维持剂量每月给药一次[12~14]

GnRH拮抗剂可与垂体GnRH受体直接结合而占据受体位置,进而迅速抑制内源性促性腺激素的分泌,因此其在临床上除应用于前列腺癌治疗外,也应用于以下几个方面的治疗:(1)已经成熟应用于辅助生殖技术,能够提高体外受精-胚胎移植(IVT-ET)的成功率[15];(2)有效抑制乳腺癌上皮细胞的生长,可作为绝经前恶性乳腺肿瘤的二线用药;(3)用于肿瘤化疗时对性腺(卵巢)的保护[16];(4)初步应用于性激素相关的妇科疾病的治疗,如子宫肌瘤、子宫内膜异位症、功能性子宫出血、多囊卵巢综合征等;(5)体外实验发现GnRH拮抗剂能够抑制卵巢癌及子宫内膜癌细胞的增殖[17],但目前仍未应用于临床治疗。

3 地加瑞克治疗前列腺癌的临床现状

在地加瑞克的Ⅱ期临床试验研究基础上,北美和欧洲开展了一项为期1年的多中心随机开放Ⅲ期临床试验,共纳入610例晚期前列腺癌患者进行雄激素剥除治疗[8]。纳入患者均采用80 mg或160 mg维持剂量的地加瑞克进行治疗,并以亮丙瑞林作为对照[18~20]。结果发现,在主要终点事件即睾酮抑制(28~364 d间的每月血清睾酮≤0.5 ng/mL)方面,两种剂量地加瑞克的疗效均不劣于亮丙瑞林。用药3 d后240/160 mg组和240/80 mg组分别有96.1%和95.5%的患者达到睾酮去势水平,而亮丙瑞林组没有患者达到这一水平;用药14 d后,3组达到睾酮去势水平的患者比例分别为100%、99.5%和18.2%。亮丙瑞林组和地加瑞克组患者睾酮激增的发生率分别为80%和0%。地加瑞克组患者前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen,PSA)的下降速度也明显快于亮丙瑞林组,与睾酮下降变化趋势一致[8]。此外,地加瑞克可早期抑制LH和FSH的表达,且长期随访发现地加瑞克的耐受性较好,没有组胺释放导致的超敏反应[18]。综上所述,地加瑞克能够安全快速降低睾酮和PSA水平,与GnRH激动剂相比优势更为显著。

长期随访应用地加瑞克的患者时发现地加瑞克的有效性优于亮丙瑞林的1月剂型,其有效抑制睾酮和PSA水平的时间可达3年以上,显著延长了进展间隔[21];同时转移性前列腺癌患者的血清碱性磷酸酶活性明显下降[22],表明骨转移肿瘤负荷得到了有效控制和缓解。但目前GnRH拮抗剂和激动剂在肿瘤控制和生存方面的比较研究尚不清楚。在进行放射治疗前的新辅助内分泌治疗时,相比亮丙瑞林的1月给药剂型,地加瑞克在前56 d内可使PSA下降速度更快[21]。有证据表明在外照射治疗和近距离照射治疗前行新辅助内分泌治疗时的PSA谷值能够预测疾病预后[23~24],表明地加瑞克有益于疾病的长期控制。

在进行前列腺癌根治术前的新辅助内分泌治疗时,一项Ⅱ期临床试验评价了单用地加瑞克、地加瑞克联用比卡鲁胺和GnRH激动剂联用比卡鲁胺的疗效,发现单用地加瑞克组患者肿瘤内的双氢睾酮水平高于其他两组患者,血清睾酮水平在3组患者间没有差别[25]。Shaw等[26]对地加瑞克在根治术前新辅助治疗中的应用进行了深入的探讨,对根治术取得的组织进行了质谱分析、免疫组化和基因表达芯片的检测,发现雄激素受体调节的下游基因发生了下调变化,同时也发现雌激素受体表达上调,且与肿瘤增殖活性相关。Boccon-Gibod等[27]评价了地加瑞克应用于前列腺癌患者的间歇内分泌治疗效果,证实其在短期内安全有效,且患者在脱离治疗期间的生活质量明显提高,如性欲恢复等。目前地加瑞克在激素抵抗性前列腺癌(castration resistant prostate cancer,CRPC)治疗等方面的应用价值尚不清楚,一项多中心Ⅱ期临床试验评价了地加瑞克作为二线用药的有效性,治疗3月时的PSA反应性仅为16.7%~33.3%[28]。目前地加瑞克在CRPC治疗、间歇内分泌治疗、新辅助治疗等方面的报道仍然较少,应用价值尚不清楚,需要进一步的多中心随机化临床试验来证实。

Klotz等[29]于2014年合并了5个前列腺癌临床Ⅲ期试验的数据(1 925例),发现选择地加瑞克进行内分泌治疗时,患者的整体生存率优于应用亮丙瑞林和戈舍瑞林等GnRH激动剂组,且更少发生关节疼痛、背部脊柱疼痛和泌尿系统感染等并发症。GnRH激动剂组患者的死亡率(3%,19例)高于地加瑞克组(1%,18例),但其中只有很少一部分死亡与前列腺癌相关(地加瑞克组3例,GnRH激动剂组1例)[29]。不良事件在地加瑞克组中更常见,这种差别可能主要是由于地加瑞克注射部位不良事件如注射部位疼痛、红斑、肿胀、结节发生率较高所致;除此外,地加瑞克组患者的其他不良反应发生率明显低于GnRH激动剂组,如关节疼痛症状、骨骼肌肉疼痛症状、泌尿系统相关并发症等[30]。造成这种差异的原因可能是地加瑞克与GnRH激动剂的作用机制不同,前者能引起快速和持续的睾酮抑制;而后者却能引起睾酮的一过性激增,进而导致病情加剧,期间还可能促进前列腺癌的生长。

一项比较应用地加瑞克与戈舍瑞林后前列腺癌患者下尿路症状(LUTS)缓解和生活质量提高的情况的系统评价发现,与戈舍瑞林和比卡鲁胺联合应用相比,单纯应用地加瑞克的患者在LUTS缓解方面可获得明显改善[31],这可能归因于地加瑞克能明显缩小前列腺肿瘤体积。对使用地加瑞克治疗晚期前列腺癌患者生活质量评价的研究中,地加瑞克可通过延缓PSA进展显著改善患者的生活质量和健康负担[32]。既往有心血管疾病的前列腺癌患者应用地加瑞克后,其发生心血管事件的风险低于应用GnRH激动剂的患者[33]。造成这种现象的原因可能是雄激素剥夺引起的脂质代谢异常、胰岛素抵抗、肥胖等增加了动脉粥样硬化斑块破裂的风险[16],而GnRH激动剂可能通过激活淋巴细胞上的GnRH受体发挥促炎作用,进一步增加动脉粥样硬化斑块破裂的风险[34~36]。因此,在克服了超敏反应等不良反应后,地加瑞克在关节疼痛、LUTS及心脑血管事件等并发症发生方面优于GnRH激动剂,但结论有待于进一步的临床试验证实。

GnRH激动剂目前仍然是ADT的一线方案,但在一些特殊情况下,地加瑞克的疗效明显优于GnRH激动剂。例如,当前列腺癌骨转移患者发生肿瘤组织压迫脊髓、严重骨痛或下尿路梗阻等症状时,应用地加瑞克具有显著优势;这些情况是GnRH激动剂的禁忌证,必须采用手术去势,同时口服酮康唑或者是应用地加瑞克[37~38]。除上述适应证外,还有一些临床情况也使得临床医师倾向于选择地加瑞克。由于地加瑞克不会导致睾酮一过性升高而引起病情加剧,可以选择在治疗初始阶段应用地加瑞克、2~12个月后更换为GnRH激动剂的治疗方案[39]

4 小 结

综上所述,以地加瑞克为代表的GnRH拮抗剂比GnRH激动剂有一定的优势和应用前景。目前我国正在进行地加瑞克的Ⅲ期临床试验,其在中国人群中的临床应用价值及适应证将得到进一步证实,有望为患者提供更多的治疗选择。在未来一段时间内,即使地加瑞克无法替代GnRH激动剂成为内分泌治疗的一线方案,其仍然可以为临床医生提供丰富灵活的内分泌治疗选择,帮助患者取得最佳的临床效益。

参考文献
[1] SIEGEL R L, MILLER K D, JEMAL A. Cancer statistics, 2016[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66: 7–30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.v66.1
[2] HUGGINS C, HODGES C V. Studies on prostatic cancer. I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 1972, 22: 232–240. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.22.4.232
[3] 那彦群,孙颖浩,曹登峰,高献书,胡志全,牛晓辉,等.前列腺癌诊断治疗指南[M]//那彦群,叶章群,孙颖浩.中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南.北京:人民卫生出版社,2014:61-66.
[4] RICK F G, SCHALLY A V. Bench-to-bedside development of agonists and antagonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone for treatment of advanced prostate cancer[J]. Urol Oncol, 2015, 33: 270–274. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.006
[5] ENGEL J B, SCHALLY A V. Drug Insight. clinical use of agonists and antagonists of luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone[J]. Nat Clinl Pract Endocrinol Metab, 2007, 3: 157–167. DOI: 10.1038/ncpendmet0399
[6] MCARDLE C A, FRANKLIN J, GREEN L, HISLOP J N. Signalling, cycling and desensitisation of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone receptors[J]. J Endocrinol, 2002, 173: 1–11. DOI: 10.1677/joe.0.1730001
[7] TSUSHIMA T, NASU Y, SAIKA T, MAKI Y, NODA M, SUYAMA B, et al. Optimal starting time for flutamide to prevent disease flare in prostate cancer patients treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist[J]. Urologia Internationalis, 2001, 66: 135–139. DOI: 10.1159/000056592
[8] KLOTZ L, BOCCON-GIBOD L, SHORE N D, ANDREOU C, PERSSON B E, CANTOR P, et al. The efficacy and safety of degarelix: a 12-month, comparative, randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase Ⅲ study in patients with prostate cancer[J]. BJU Int, 2008, 102: 1531–1538. DOI: 10.1111/bju.2008.102.issue-11
[9] GONZALEZ-BARCENA D, VADILLO-BUENFIL M, CORTEZ-MORALES A, FUENTES-GARCIA M, CARDENAS-CORNEJO I, COMARU-SCHALLY A M, et al. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonist cetrorelix as primary single therapy in patients with advanced prostatic cancer and paraplegia due to metastatic invasion of spinal cord[J]. Urology, 1995, 45: 275–281. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(95)80018-2
[10] TRACHTENBERG J, GITTLEMAN M, STEIDLE C, BARZELL W, FRIEDEL W, PESSIS D, et al. A phase 3, multicenter, open label, randomized study of abarelix versus leuprolide plus daily antiandrogen in men with prostate cancer[J]. J Urol, 2002, 167: 1670–1674. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65175-0
[11] SHORE N D, ABRAHAMSSON P A, ANDERSON J, CRAWFORD E D, LANGE P. New considerations for ADT in advanced prostate cancer and the emerging role of GnRH antagonists[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2013, 16: 7–15. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2012.25
[12] GITTELMAN M, POMMERVILLE P J, PERSSON B E, JENSEN J K, OLESEN T K; Degarelix Study Group. A 1-year, open label, randomized phase Ⅱ dose finding study of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer in North America[J]. J Urology, 2008, 180: 1986–1992. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.033
[13] VAN POPPEL H, TOMBAL B, DE LA ROSETTE J J, PERSSON B E, JENSEN J K, KOLD OLESEN T. Degarelix: a novel gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor blocker--results from a 1-yr, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 dosage-finding study in the treatment of prostate cancer[J]. Eur Urol, 2008, 54: 805–813. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.065
[14] OZONO S, UEDA T, HOSHI S, YAMAGUCHI A, MAEDA H, FUKUYAMA Y, et al. The efficacy and safety of degarelix, a GnRH antagonist: a 12-month, multicentre, randomized, maintenance dose-finding phase Ⅱ study in Japanese patients with prostate cancer[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2012, 42: 477–484. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hys035
[15] AKMAN M A, ERDEN H F, TOSUN S B, BAYAZIT N, AKSOY E, BAHCECI M. Addition of GnRH antagonist in cycles of poor responders undergoing IVF[J]. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15: 2145–2147. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2145
[16] MEIROW D, ASSAD G, DOR J, RABINOVICI J. The GnRH antagonist cetrorelix reduces cyclophosphamide-induced ovarian follicular destruction in mice[J]. Hum Reprod, 2004, 19: 1294–1299. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh257
[17] FISTER S, GUNTHERT A R, EMONS G, GRUNDKER C. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone type Ⅱ antagonists induce apoptotic cell death in human endometrial and ovarian cancer cells in vitro and in vivo[J]. Cancer Res, 2007, 67: 1750–1756. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3222
[18] CRAWFORD E D, SHORE N D, MOUL J W, TOMBAL B, SCHRÖDER F H, MILLER K, et al. Long-term tolerability and efficacy of degarelix: 5-year results from a phase Ⅲ extension trial with a 1-arm crossover from leuprolide to degarelix[J]. Urology, 2014, 83: 1122–1128. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.013
[19] CRAWFORD E D, TOMBAL B, MILLER K, BOCCON-GIBOD L, SCHRÖDER F, SHORE N, et al. A phase Ⅲ extension trial with a 1-arm crossover from leuprolide to degarelix: comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antagonist effect on prostate cancer[J]. J Urol, 2011, 186: 889–897. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.083
[20] DE LA ROSETTE J, DAVIS R 3rd, FRANKEL D, KOLD OLESEN T. Efficacy and safety of androgen deprivation therapy after switching from monthly leuprolide to monthly degarelix in patients with prostate cancer[J]. Int J Clin Pract, 2011, 65: 559–566. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02637.x
[21] TOMBAL B, MILLER K, BOCCON-GIBOD L, SCHRÖDER F, SHORE N, CRAWFORD E D, et al. Additional analysis of the secondary end point of biochemical recurrence rate in a phase 3 trial (CS21) comparing degarelix 80 mg versus leuprolide in prostate cancer patients segmented by baseline characteristics[J]. Eur Urol, 2010, 57: 836–842. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.029
[22] SCHRÖDER F H, TOMBAL B, MILLER K, BOCCON-GIBOD L, SHORE N D, CRAWFORD E D, et al. Changes in alkaline phosphatase levels in patients with prostate cancer receiving degarelix or leuprolide: results from a 12-month, comparative, phase Ⅲ study[J]. BJU Int, 2010, 106: 182–187.
[23] ZUMSTEG Z S, SPRATT D E, ROMESSER P B, PEI X, ZHANG Z, POLKINGHORN W, et al. The natural history and predictors of outcome following biochemical relapse in the dose escalation era for prostate cancer patients undergoing definitive external beam radiotherapy[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 67: 1009–1016. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.028
[24] MIKI K, SASAKI H, KIDO M, TAKAHASHI H, AOKI M, EGAWA S. A comparative study on the efficacies of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist in neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy combined with transperineal prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer[J]. BMC Cancer, 2016, 16: 708. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2737-8
[25] SAYYID R, EVANS A, HERSEY K, MALONI R, HURTADO-COLL A, KULKARNI G, et al. A phaseⅡ, randomized, open label study of neoadjuvant degarelix versus LHRH agonist in prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2016.
[26] SHAW G L, WHITAKER H, CORCORAN M, DUNNING M J, LUXTON H, KAY J, et al. The early effects of rapid androgen deprivation on human prostate cancer[J]. Eur Urology, 2016, 70: 214–218. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.042
[27] BOCCON-GIBOD L, ALBERS P, MOROTE J, VAN POPPEL H, DE LA ROSETTE J, VILLERS A, et al. Degarelix as an intermittent androgen deprivation therapy for one or more treatment cycles in patients with prostate cancer[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 66: 655–663. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.037
[28] MILLER K, SIMSON G, GOBLE S, PERSSON B E. Efficacy of degarelix in prostate cancer patients following failure on luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist treatment: results from an open-label, multicentre, uncontrolled, phaseⅡtrial (CS27)[J]. Ther Adv Urol, 2015, 7: 105–115. DOI: 10.1177/1756287215574479
[29] KLOTZ L, MILLER K, CRAWFORD E D, SHORE N, TOMBAL B, KARUP C, et al. Disease control outcomes from analysis of pooled individual patient data from five comparative randomised clinical trials of degarelix versus luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 66: 1101–1108. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.063
[30] KIMURA T, SASAKI H, AKAZAWA K, EGAWA S. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist: A real advantage?[J]. Urol Oncol, 2015, 33: 322–328. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.013
[31] CUI Y, ZONG H, YAN H, LI N, ZHANG Y. Degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide therapy for lower urinary tract symptom relief, prostate volume reduction and quality of life improvement in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Urol Int, 2014, 93: 152–159. DOI: 10.1159/000356272
[32] LEE D, NIELSEN S K, VAN KEEP M, ANDERSSON F, GREENE D. Quality of life improvement in patients treated with degarelix versus leuprorelin for advanced prostate cancer[J]. J Urol, 2015, 193: 839–846. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.098
[33] ALBERTSEN P C, KLOTZ L, TOMBAL B, GRADY J, OLESEN T K, NILSSON J. Cardiovascular morbidity associated with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists and an antagonist[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 65: 565–573. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.032
[34] PAGLIARULO V, BRACARDA S, EISENBERGER M A, MOTTET N, SCHRODER F H, STERNBERG C N, et al. Contemporary role of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer[J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 61: 11–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.026
[35] ROSARIO D J, DAVEY P, GREEN J, GREENE D, TURNER B, PAYNE H, et al. The role of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists in the treatment of patients with advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in the UK[J]. World J of Urol, 2016, 34: 1601–1609. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1818-2
[36] KNUTSSON A, HSIUNG S, CELIK S, RATTIK S, MATTISSON I Y, WIGREN M, et al. Treatment with a GnRH receptor agonist, but not the GnRH receptor antagonist degarelix, induces atherosclerotic plaque instability in ApoE-/- mice[J]. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 26220. DOI: 10.1038/srep26220
[37] POKURI V K, NOURKEYHANI H, BETSY B, HERBST L, SIKORSKI M, SPANGENTHAL E, et al. Strategies to circumvent testosterone surge and disease flare in advanced prostate cancer: emerging treatment paradigms[J/OL]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2015, 13: e49-e55. http://www.jnccn.org/content/13/7/e49.abstract
[38] GEIGES G, HARMS T, RODEMER G, ECKERT R, KONIG F, EICHENAUER R, et al. Degarelix therapy for prostate cancer in a real-world setting: experience from the German IQUO (Association for Uro-Oncological Quality Assurance) Firmagon® registry[J]. BMC Urol, 2015, 15: 122. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-015-0116-4
[39] EZAKI T, KOSAKA T, MIZUNO R, SHINOJIMA T, KIKUCHI E, MIYAJIMA A, et al. Efficacy of treatment with a GnRH antagonist in prostate cancer patients previously treated with a GnRH agonist[J]. Cancer Chemothe Pharmacol, 2015, 76: 301–306. DOI: 10.1007/s00280-015-2798-4