Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND:
Long-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE--an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial--uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A).
METHODS:
Eligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544.
FINDINGS:
2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74-1·20). [corrected]. 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46-56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43-58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20-27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19-30] in arm D). The most common grade 3-5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee.
INTERPRETATION:
Celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival.

Neoadjuvant hormone therapy for radical prostate radiotherapy:bicalutamide monotherapy vs. luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist monotherapy: a single-institution matched-pair analysis

The purpose of this study was to compare the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to either neoadjuvant bicalutamide (BC) monotherapy or neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) monotherapy and the subsequent effect on biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) in men receiving radical radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer.

Human growth hormone and the temptations of biomedical enhancement

It is likely that humans have sought enhancements for themselves or their children for as long as they have recognised that improvements in individuals are a possibility. One genre of self-improvement in modern society can be called 'biomedical enhancements'. These include drugs, surgery and other medical interventions aimed at improving the mind, body or performance. This paper uses the case of human growth hormone (hGH) to examine the social nature of enhancements. Synthetic hGH was developed in 1985 by the pharmaceutical industry and was approved by the FDA for very specific uses, particularly treatment of growth hormone deficiency. However, it has also been promoted for a number of 'off label' uses, most of which can be deemed enhancements. Drugs approved for one treatment pave the way for use as enhancements for other problems. Claims have been made for hGH as a treatment for idiopathic shortness, as an anti-ageing agent and to improve athletic performance. Using the hGH case, we are able to distinguish three faces of biomedical enhancement: normalisation, repair and performance edge. Given deeply ingrained social and individual goals in American society, the temptations of biomedical enhancements provide inducement for individuals and groups to modify their situation. We examine the temptations of enhancement in terms of issues such as unnaturalness, fairness, risk and permanence, and shifting social meanings. In our conclusions, we outline the potentials and pitfalls of biomedical enhancement.

Relationships between adrenocorticotropic hormone and cortisol are altered during clustered nursing care in preterm infants born at extremely low gestational age

Little is known about the effects of clustered nursing care on hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) responses in preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Hormone profiling in a novel enteroendocrine cell line pGIP/neo:STC-1

GIP is a peptide hormone of therapeutic interest in type 2 diabetes and obesity. This study evaluated pGIP/neo STC-1 as a potential K-cell model for studying GIP secretion.

Growth hormone (GH) responsiveness to GHRH in normal adults is not affected by short-term gonadal blockade

The effects of changes in circulating gonadal steroids on GH secretion elicited by GHRH challenge (1µg/kg) in normal adults volunteers (aged 18-24 years), were evaluated in 10 women and 10 men before and after gonadal blockade was achieved by a GnRH agonist (1500 µg/day by nasal spray for 40 days). To see if the effect of testosterone on GH secretion was dependent on its aromatization to estradiol (E), GHRH tests were performed in 7 normal men prior to administration of testosterone enanthate (250 mg im), 8 days after this treatment had began, and again after E receptor blockade with tamoxifen (30 mg for 2 days plus 10 mg on the third day 2 h before the GHRH test, po) administered 8 days after testosterone enanthate. The study of the functional status of the somatotropes at the time of GHRH testing was made according to our previous postulate. Short-term gonadal blockade did not affect the parameters of GH response to GHRH in neither women nor men. Thus, the functional blockade of the gonads may be advisable as an adjunct therapy in the treatment of hypothalamic GH deficiency during the prepubertal stage. In the other group of men, administration of testosterone enanthate significantly increased GHRH-elicited GH release, but this was reverted after E receptor blockade. Since the hypothalamic-somatotrope rhythm was altered by both these farmacological manipulations, it appears that testosterone acts on GH release mainly at the suprapituitary level, and that this action is secondary to its aromatization to E.

Role of central dopaminergic pathways in the neural control of growth hormone secretion in normal men:Studies with metoclopramide

The aim of this study was to gain further insight into the role that central dopaminergic pathways play in GH neuroregulation in man. Our experimental hypothesis was based on the possibility that most of the controversies on DA role could be due to the fact that the hypothalamic somatotroph rhythm (HSR) was not taken into account when interpreting the GH responses after pharmacological manipulations on dopaminergic pathways. In 10 normal subjects we monitored the effect of central dopaminergic blockade, achieved with metoclopramide (MCP; 10 mg, i.v. Bolus), on the pattern of spontaneous GH secretion and the GH responses to a GHRH challenge (GRF , 1 µg/kg, i.v. bolus) administered together with MCP or 60 min after this drug was given. The study of HSR was made according to our previous postulate. Our results indicate that MCP administration, either prior to or together with the GHRH bolus, significantly increased GHRH-induced GH release during a refractory HSR phase; but not when the GHRH challenge took place during a spotaneous secretory phase. The strong relationship between pre-GHRH plasma GH values and GHRH-elicited GH peaks was lost when MCP was given. These data indicate that MCP was able to disrupt the intrinsic HSR by inhibiting the hypothalamic release of somatostain (SS). While a main conclusion would be that central DA is a secretagogue for SS secretion, our results also suggest that this role could be dependent on its effects on the adrenergic inputs to SS neurons.

Reasons for the variability in growth hormone (GH) responses to GHRH challenge:the endogenous hypothalamic-somatotroph rhythm (HSR)

The aims of this study were: (1) to test the possibility that pre-GHRH plasma GH values could reflect the functional status of the hypothalamic-somatotroph rhythm (HSR) at testing, and thus explain if it is responsible for the marked variability in GH responsiveness to GHRH challenge and (2) to see if exogenous somatostatin (SS) could disrupt this endogenous HSR and thus make the GH responses homogeneous. (1) Two to 14 GHRH acute tests (GRF-29, 1 µg/kg, i.v. bolus) were performed in 12 normal men and 10 normal women at the same time (0830 h) at random intervals (2 to 60 days). Blood samples to measure plasma GH were drawn at 15 min intervals before and after GHRH challenge. Given that the increments in pre-GHRH plasma GH values (I = value at 0 min minus value at -15 min) were highly correlated with either GHRH-elicited peaks of GH (men, r = 0.81; women, r = 0.69; P

The role of sexual steroids in the modulation of growth hormone (GH) secretion in humans

Sex steroids contribute to modulate GH secretion in man. However, both the exact locus and mechanism by which their actions are exerted still remain not clearly understood. We undertook a number of studies designed to ascertain: (1) whether or not sudden or chronic changes in circulating gonadal steroids may affect GH secretion in normal adults; and (2) the reason(s) for gender-related dimorphic pattern of GH release. The pituitary reserve of GH, as evaluated by means of a GHRH challenge, was similar in women with anorexia nervosa and in normally menstruating women. Estrogenic receptor blockade with tamoxifen (TMX) did not significantly change GHRH-induced GH response in these normal women. Therefore, acute or chronic hypoestrogenism apparently had no important effects at level of somatotrophs. In another group of normal women we tested the possibility that changes in circulating estrogens might induce changes in the hypothalamic-somatotroph rhythm (HSR). GHRH challenges were performed throughout a menstrual cycle, and again after having achieved functional ovarian blockade with a GnRH agonist treatment. Short-term ovarian blockade did not significantly affect the parameters of GH response to GHRH, although it was accompanied by an increase in the number of women ina refractory HSR phase at testing. This suggested a low potentiating effect on the basic pattern of somatostatin (SS) release occurring as a consequence of the decrease in circulating estrogens. In normal men, neither the GH response to GHRH nor the HSR were affected by functional testicular blockade (after GnRH agonist treatment). However, the administration of testosterone enanthate (250 mg) to another group of men increased both the GHRH-induced GH release and the number of subjects in a spontaneous secretory HSR phase at testing; these were reversed by estrogenic receptor blockade with TMS. In another group of normal men, the fraction of GH secreted in pulses (FGHP) during a nocturnal sampling period was significantly decreased by testicular blockade. Other parameters of GH secretion, such as the number of GH pulses and their mean amplitude (A), and the mean plasma GH concentration (MCGH), showed a slight, although not significant, decrease following the lack of androgens. The administration of testosterone enanthate (500 mg) reversed these parameters to values similar to those in the basal study. Interestingly, when tamoxifen was given after testosterone enanthate, A, MCGH and FGHP increased to values significantly higher than in any other experimental condition in that study. In all, these data suggest that 17ß-estradiol may participate in GH modulation by inhibiting the hypothalamic release of somatostatin, while testosterone stimulates it. The results obtained after estrogenic receptor blockade appear to indicate that the effect of testosterone in such a modulation is dependent on its aromatization to 17ß-estradiol. The differential levels of this steroid in both sexes might account for the sexual dimorphic pattern of GH secretion. From other data in the literature, obtained in rats, and our preliminary data in children with constitutional delay of growth and puberty, it is tempting to speculate that the effect of 17ß-estradiol may be exerted by modifying the functional activity of a-2 adrenergic pathways involved in the negative modulation of SS release.

α-Adrenergic agonism enhances the growth hormone (GH) response to GH-releasing hormone through an inhibition of hypothalamic somatostatin release in normal men

The purpose of this study was to investigate the precise mechanism by which central a-adrenergic pathways modulate GH secretion in humans. In 10 normal subjects we compared the pattern of clonidine-induced GH release to that elicited by GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) given at a time of presumably similar responsiveness of the somatotrope. We also evaluated the effect of stimulation by GHRH (either endogenous, by administration of clonidine, or exogenous) on the GH response to a further exogenous GHRH stimulation. In 2 experiments the administration of clonidine (0.150 mg, orally) at 0 or 60 min was followed by a GHRH [GRF-(1-29); 1 µg/kg, iv] challenge at 180 min. In other experiments subjects received on separate occasions placebo or clonidine at 0 min, followed by GHRH at 60 min and again at 180 min. In a further experiment the administration of clonidine at 0 min was followed by 2 GHRH challenges (60 and 180 min later). The administration of clonidine 60 or 120 min, but not 180 min, before the GHRH bolus significantly (P <0.01) increased the GH responses to this challenge compared to those elicited by GHRH when given after placebo in a period of a similar somatotrope responsiveness. These, in turn, were significantly (P <0.05) higher than those elicited by clonidine alone. The close relationship between pre-GHRH plasma GH values and GHRH-elicited GH peaks, not observed for clonidine, was lost after pretreatment with this drug. These data indicate that clonidine was able to disrupt the intrinsic hypothalamic-somatotroph rhythm, suggesting that a-adrenergic pathways have a major inhibitory effect on somatostatin release. Our data also indicate that GH responses to a GHRH bolus administered 120 min after a prior GHRH challenge are dependent on two parameters: the intrinsic hypothalamic-somatotroph rhythm at the time of the second GHRH bolus, and the magnitude of GH secretion elicited by the previous somatotroph stimulation. In summary, a-adrenergic agonism appears to act primarily in GH control by inhibiting the hypothalamic release of somatostatin, rather than by stimulating GHRH secretion.

Hormone therapy and intraocular pressure in nonglaucomatous eyes

Objective: The influence of sex hormones on intraocular pressure (IOP) has been the focus of recent debate. Previous studies investigating the effects of hormone therapy (HT) on IOP in postmenopausal women have produced conflicting results but have been limited by small numbers of participants. The aim of our study was to compare IOP in women without glaucoma taking HT with those not taking HT. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study of postmenopausal women visiting a single ophthalmic medical practitioner was conducted. All women with a history of intraocular disease, a family history of glaucoma, or refractive error exceeding ±5 diopters were excluded. Applanation tonometry was used to measure IOP, and participants were then asked if they were current HT users. Results: A total of 263 participants were recruited, of whom 91 reported current use of HT; 172 had never used HT. Within the HT group, 33 were taking an estrogen-therapy and 58 were taking a estrogen-progesterone therapy. Mean IOP in the HT group was significantly lower than that in the non-HT group; the mean difference was 1.41 mm Hg (P <0.001). This difference remained statistically significant after statistical correction for age, use of systemic ß-blockers, and time of IOP measurement. There was no significant difference in mean IOP between women taking combined versus those taking estrogen-only preparations. Conclusions: Our study showed that IOP was significantly lower in women taking HT than in those who had never taken HT, even after removing other possible influences on IOP. The IOP-lowering effect of HT deserves further investigation to explore whether it may represent a possible new therapeutic modality for glaucoma. © 2010 by The North American Menopause Society.