Flutamide, a nonsteroidal antiandrogenic drug devoid of hormonal agonist activity, is used in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.
In previously untreated patients, flutamide 750mg daily given alone is of comparable efficacy to diethylstibestrol (stilboestrol) 1 or 3mg daily and estramustine 560 or 840mg daily, but has the potential advantages of fewer cardiovascular effects and maintenance of some sexual potency. Its greatest therapeutic potential is as a component of combination androgen blockade, where administration with an agonist analogue of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) [luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH)] in both initial uncontrolled and randomised studies increased survival time relative to GnRH agonist monotherapy or orchidectomy. Subsequent multicentre trials, however, have been unable to confirm an improvement in survival time. Thus, while there seems to be little doubt that flutamide prevents the initial disease flare caused by GnRH agonists, an improvement in remission rate and survival remains contentious.
Flutamide is generally well tolerated and is suitable monotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced prostatic cancer who wish to preserve sexual potency. However, full assessment of the role of combination androgen blockade awaits publication of the final results of ongoing multicentre trials.
Flutamide, a nonsteroidal antiandrogenic drug devoid of hormone agonist activity, is often termed a ‘pure’ antiandrogen.
Such activity in intact animals is enhanced by the addition of a GnRH agonist and is associated with more pronounced prostate atrophy than the GnRH analogue alone. These and other findings form the basis of combination androgen blockade used to treat advanced prostatic cancer in men.
Administration of flutamide 750mg daily to healthy male volunteers increases plasma concentrations of testosterone, estradiol, luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). These effects are prevented by concomitant administration of a GnRH analogue.
It is generally considered that flutamide and its principal active metabolite, 2-hydroxy-flutamide, act mainly by inhibiting the binding of dihydrotestosterone to nuclear androgen receptors, thus decreasing cell proliferation in androgen-dependent tissues. However, a recent study of the proliferative capacity of androgen-sensitive human prostate tumour cells in the presence of steroidal and nonsteroidal antiandrogens found poor correlation between relative binding affinity to androgen receptors and proliferative efficiency. 2-Hydroxy-flutamide appears to be largely responsible for the antiandrogenic activity of flutamide.
In healthy elderly men (aged 65 to 68 years) and patients with prostate cancer (aged 59 to 82 years), mean maximum concentrations of unchanged flutamide are attained 0.5 to 1.5 hours after a single 250mg oral dose and 1 to 4 hours after a 500mg dose. Plasma flutamide and 2-hydroxy-flutamide concentrations achieve steady-state by the sixth and third day, respectively, of 3 times daily oral administration. At steady-state, mean maximum plasma concentrations are 3- to 5- fold higher than after the first dose. The area under the plasma flutamide concentration-time curve is similar in elderly and younger volunteers, although mean maximum plasma concentrations tend to be lower in the elderly.
Following a single 250mg oral dose, the elimination half-life of 2-hydroxy-flutamide was 8.1 and 4 to 6.6 hours in elderly volunteers and in patients with prostate cancer, respectively.
Comparisons of flutamide and estrogen therapy in generally small numbers of previously untreated patients with advanced prostate cancer have shown flutamide 750mg daily to be of similar efficacy to diethylstilbestrol 1 or 3mg daily. The efficacies of flutamide and estramustine also appeared similar. Uncontrolled trials of flutamide plus a GnRH analogue suggested improved survival with such regimens relative to GnRH analogues alone. Less impressive, though significantly prolonged, survival times relative to medical castration alone were achieved with combination androgen blockade in a subsequent large multicentre randomised trial. However, analyses of several later randomised trials did not find evidence for improved survival time with combined treatment compared with a GnRH agonist alone or orchidectomy.
Subjective responses (based on symptom control and performance status) were similar in flutamide plus goserelin recipients and surgically castrated patients, although there was evidence of an approximately 8-month longer symptom-free survival in those receiving combination therapy in 1 study. Final judgement on the possible advantages of combination androgen blockade awaits completion of these trials.
Not surprisingly, flutamide, like other systemic treatments affecting the sex hormones, is less effective in patients unresponsive to hormonal manipulation, with response usually limited and short. Nevertheless, substitution of flutamide for cyproterone acetate elicited a positive response in 31% of patients who relapsed during combined androgen blockade, including 58% of those with stage D1 disease. Larger trials are needed to confirm these favourable results and to determine if equally satisfactory results can be achieved with a flutamide-containing regimen started at diagnosis.
Apart from a high incidence of gynaecomastia (34 to 100%) and some gastrointestinal discomfort, flutamide has generally been well tolerated.
Gynaecomastia is less frequent when flutamide is combined with a GnRH analogue, but hot flushes occur in at least 50% of patients treated with such a regimen. Flushing is not associated with flutamide monotherapy, and the incidence of cardiovascular complications may be less than with estrogen treatment. Another favourable feature of treatment with flutamide alone is the maintenance of sexual potency in about 80% of patients, although this advantage over estrogen or estramustine therapy is negated when a GnRH agonist is added. Elevation of liver enzymes has been reported in up to about one-third of patients in some studies. These values often return to normal during continued treatment, although a few instances of reversible liver failure or cholestatic hepatitis have been reported.
Dosage and Administration
When administered alone or combined with a subcutaneous or intranasal GnRH agonist analogue, the oral dosage of flutamide is 250mg 3 times daily in both newly diagnosed patients and those whose disease is refractory to hormonal manipulation.
KeywordsGnRH Agonist Flutamide Advanced Prostatic Cancer Goserelin Tamide
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Boccardo F. Treatment of prostatic cancer with LHRH analogues alone or in combination with pure antiandrogens. Abstract 147. Gynecological Endocrinology 4(Suppl. 2): 84, 1990Google Scholar
- Ferrari P, Castagnetti G, Pollastri C, Ferrari G, Tavoni F, et al. LHRH analogue buserelin versus buserelin and flutamide in the treatment of advanced metastatic prostatic carcinoma: five years experience. Abstract 154. Gynecological Endrocrinology 4(Suppl.2): 87, 1990Google Scholar
- Fourcade RO, Cariou G, Coloby P, Colombel P, Coulange C, et al. Total androgen blockade in advanced prostate carcinoma: interim report of a double-blind study using Zoladex and flutamide. Abstract 158. Gynecological Endocrinology 4(Suppl. 2): 89, 1990Google Scholar
- Haefliger JM (on behalf of the International Prostate Cancer Study Group). A multicentre randomised trial comparing the LHRH analogue ‘Zoladex’ vs ‘Zoladex’ in combination with flutamide in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Abstract 155. Gynecological Endocrinology 4(Suppl. 2): 88, 1990Google Scholar
- Holdaway I, Altwein JE, Klippel K-F, Lungmayr G, Tyrrell CJ, et al. A multicentre randomised trial comparing the LHRH agonist ‘Zoladex’ with ‘Zoladex’ in combination with flutamide in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Journal of Urology 143: 220A, 1990Google Scholar
- Iversen P (on behalf of the Danish Prostatic Cancer Group). DAPROCA 86 ‘Zoladex’ and flutamide versus orchiectomy for advanced prostatic cancer. Abstract 156. Gynecological Endocrinology 4(Suppl. 2): 88, 1990Google Scholar
- Kassem NY, Neri RO. Flutamide in advanced cancer of the prostate. Abstract E1. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 31: 238, 1982Google Scholar
- Kassem NY, Neri RO, Muntol JS. Effect of flutamide, an antiandrogen on stage D cancer of the prostate. Abstract B-27. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 29: 256, 1981Google Scholar
- Labrie F, Dupont A, Bélanger A. Complete androgen blockade for the treatment of prostate cancer. In De Vita VT et al. (Eds) Important advances in oncology, pp. 193–217, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1985Google Scholar
- Labrie F, Dupont A, Bélanger A, Cusan L, Brochu M, et al. Anti-hormone treatment for prostate cancer relapsing after treatment with flutamide and castration. Addition of aminoglutethimide and low dose hydrocortisone to combination therapy. British Journal of Urology 63: 634–638, 1989bPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Labrie F, Dupont A, Cusan L, Giguere M, Bergeron N, et al. Combination therapy with flutamide and castration (LHRH agonist or orchiectomy) in previously untreated patients with clinical stage D2 prostate cancer: today’s therapy of choice. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 30: 107–117, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Labrie F, Dupont A, Giguere M, Borsanyi J-P, Bélanger A, et al. Combination therapy with flutamide offers a 33% positive objective response in relapsing prostate cancer patients. Abstract. Anticancer Research 6: 338, 1986Google Scholar
- Labrie F, Dupont A, Giguere M, Borsanyi P, Lacourciere Y, et al. Combination therapy with flutamide and castration (orchiectomy or LHRH agonist): the minimal endocrine therapy in both untreated and previously treated patients. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 27: 525–532, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lacoste D, Dubé D, Bélanger A, Labrie F. Effect of 2-week combination therapy with the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (D-Trp6, des-Gly-NH2 10) LHRH ethylamide and the antiandrogen flutamide on prostate structure and steroid levels in the dog. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 67: 131–138, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leuprolide Study Group. Leuprolide versus diethylstilbestrol for metastatic prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 311: 1281–1286, 1984Google Scholar
- Lunglmayr G (on behalf of the International Prostate Cancer Study Group). ‘Zoladex’ versus ‘Zoladex’ plus flutamide in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer: first interim analysis of an international trial. Therapeutic Progress in Urological Cancers, pp. 145–151, 1989Google Scholar
- Mahler C, Pinto de`Carvalho A, Smith Ph, Newling D, Bono A, et al. Randomised study of orchietomy versus ‘Zoladex’ and flutamide in metastatic prostatic cancer. Abstract 142. Gynecological Endocrinology 4(suppl.2): 81, 1990Google Scholar
- McLeod DG, Blumenstein BA, Spicer D, Crawford ED, Eisenberger MA, et al. The use of flutamide in hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Abstract 130. Journal of Urology 143: 221A, 1990Google Scholar
- Millard OH, Givner ML. Preliminary results in thirty patients with stage D2 prostatic cancer treated by total androgen blockade. Journal of Drug Development 1(Suppl. 1): 26–33, 1987Google Scholar
- Neri R, Kassem N. Biological and clinical properties of antiandrogens. In Bresciani et al. (Eds) Progress in cancer research and therapy, Vol. 31, pp. 507–518, Raven Press, New York, 1984Google Scholar
- Neumann F, Gräf K-J, Hasan SH, Schenck B. Steinbeck H. Central actions of antiandrogens. In Martini & Motta (Eds) Androgrens and antiandrogens, pp. 163–177, Raven Press, New York, 1977Google Scholar
- Newling DWW. Use of flutamide as monotherapy in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Therapeutic Progress in Urological Cancers, pp.117–121, 1989Google Scholar
- Pinto Carvalho A, Carneiro de Moura JL, Denis L, Newling D, Smith Ph. “Zoladex” and flutamide vs orchidectomy: a phase III EORTC 30853 trial. In Therapeutic progress in urological cancers, pp. 129–143, Alan R. Liss Inc., 1990Google Scholar
- Smith Ph, Denis L, Carneiro De Moura JL, Newling D, Bono A, et al. ZoladexR and flutamide versus bilateral orchiectomy: a randomised phase III trial 30853 study. Abstract 19. European Journal of Cancer 143: 151, 1990Google Scholar
- Soret JY, Verine JL, Daver A, Labrie F. Levels of intraprostatic androgen receptors and intraprostatic testosterone following orchiectomy with or without addition of an antiandrogen (flutamide) in the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer. Journal of Drug Development 1(Suppl. 1): 23–25, 1987Google Scholar
- Tyrrell CJ. A multicentre randomised trial comparing the LHRH agonist ‘Zoladez’ with ‘Zoladex’ in combination with flutamide in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer 143: 151, 1990Google Scholar
- Waxman J. Short term anti-androgen therapy and very long-acting depot gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist for prostatic cancer. Therap. Prog. Urolog. Cancer, pp. 61–68, 1989Google Scholar
- Yagoda A. Flutamide-induced diarrhea secondary to lactose intolerance. Correspondence. J. Nat. Cancer Ins. 81: 1989Google Scholar