Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy.

Abstract

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer for decades; however, the choice of continuous or intermittent administration is a matter of debate. Two large phase III trials have reported results comparing these 2 forms of ADT administration. The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) PR-7 trial studied men with an increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no evidence of metastatic disease after definitive or salvage radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. The Southwest Oncology Group 9346 trial studied men with newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease. The primary end point in both trials was overall survival with a noninferiority design. The NCIC trial showed that the overall survival in men treated with intermittent ADT was not inferior to that of men treated with continuous ADT, but the SWOG trial was inconclusive regarding noninferiority. Certain domains of quality of life were better in the intermittent arms of both trials. If using ADT in the setting of biochemical relapse, intermittent ADT should be strongly considered over continuous ADT, except perhaps in patients with Gleason score of 8 or higher. In men with metastatic disease, continuous ADT remains the standard of care, because the SWOG trial did not establish noninferiority of intermittent ADT with respect to survival. However, for those with significant side effects from ADT, establishing the risk group, as determined by PSA value after 7 months of ADT or the presence of pain at diagnosis, may help guide the choice of intermittent versus continuous ADT in men with metastatic disease.