197
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Six-month leuprorelin acetate depot formulations in advanced prostate cancer: a clinical evaluation

, &
Pages 457-464 | Published online: 26 Apr 2013

Abstract

For nearly three decades, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, particularly leuprorelin acetate (LA), have served as an important part of the treatment armamentarium for prostate cancer. The introduction of LA depot formulations provided a significant improvement in the acceptance of this therapy; however, their indicated treatment duration of 1 to 4 months was still not long enough to satisfy all medical needs. For this reason some manufacturers developed new injectable formulations that provide testosterone suppression for 6 months. This review article assesses key publications in order to compare these long-acting, commercially available, LA depot formulations and their clinical performance. The literature search identified 14 publications; by excluding reviews, duplications, and non-English articles, only three original papers describing clinical trial remained for review: two focused on microsphere-based LA formulations with either a 30 mg or 45 mg dose and one focused on a gel-based leuprorelin acetate with a 45 mg dose. All products were tested in individual clinical trials and have demonstrated their efficacy and safety.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, including leuprorelin acetate (LA), have served as an important part of the treatment armamentarium for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer for nearly three decades. Initially this form of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was cumbersome, painful for patients, and challenging for physicians as they involved daily injections at the practitioner’s office, severely curtailing patients’ quality of life and increasing adverse effects, such as injection site pain and reaction.Citation1

However, the introduction of long-acting LA depot formulations has provided a significant improvement in the acceptance of this therapy, although the initial 1 to 4 month therapies did not have a sufficient duration to satisfy all medical needs. For this reason some manufacturers developed new injectable formulations that provide testosterone suppression for 6 months. These formulations were individually tested in clinical trials to evaluate their benefit–risk profiles as the basis of regulatory approvals.

Therapeutic background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a solid tumor with a high responsiveness to systemic hormonal therapy. It was described as early as 1840 by Hunter,Citation2 who noted that physiologic prostatic epithelium demonstrated signs of atrophy after physical castration. A century later in 1941, HugginsCitation3,Citation4 showed that a level of testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) must be maintained in order for prostate cancer cells to grow and that a suppression of these levels induces a reduction in tumor size. Thus, the treatment of PCa was originally surgical castration or the use of estrogen therapy, and ADT in this form was introduced into the strategy of prostate cancer treatment.Citation5 In 1971, research performed by Schally et al led to the presentation of a new form of ADT – luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) or GnRH agonists.Citation6 GnRH agonists were less cardiotoxic than estrogens and offered an easy, more patient-friendly, and reversible method of ADT that proved to be oncologically equivalent to surgical castration.Citation7

Initially, the use of GnRH agonists took the form of daily intramuscular or subcutaneous injections.Citation8 This required daily visits to the oncologist or urologist and greatly increased the chance of adverse effects, such as injection site reactions and injection site pain, but also made patient compliance with therapy more difficult.Citation9 Over the last 20 years, extended release formulations of 1, 3, 4, and 6 months have been developed, significantly increasing patient acceptance to therapy and easing treatment burdens for physicians.

Since their introduction, the GnRH agonists have been used either as monotherapy or in combination with anti-androgens, especially for the prevention of flare-ups shortly after the start of treatment. contains European Urology Association guidelines for the use of ADT in various PCa disease situations.Citation10

Table 1 Indications for hormonal therapy

Mechanism of action

Although the mechanism of action of LA is well understood,Citation11 certain aspects of its pharmacology should be noted. The competitive occupation of LH receptors by LA in the anterior pituitary gland leads to their reactive downregulation, which results in the cessation of sex steroid production in the gonads after an initial flare effect. This can be considered an all-or-nothing principal, which does not allow for dose-dependent testosterone (or estrogen) response. The result is the achievement of castration-equivalent sex steroid levels. The reason testosterone levels in men do not reach zero lies in the adrenal pathway of cholesterol metabolism, which is not affected by the action of LA on the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis or bilateral orchiectomy.Citation12

Despite the maintenance of castration levels of androgens in serum, prostate cancer usually progresses and can eventually reach the castration resistant (CRPC) stage. It has been demonstrated that the production of androgens also takes place in prostatic tumor cells, promoting tumor progression.Citation13,Citation14 In order to counteract this mechanism for fueling the growth of CRPC cells, new agents have been discovered, such as abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide (formerly known as MDV3100), and orteronel (TAK-700). These new agents target either the androgen receptor within the tumor cell directly, or counteract the androgen production through enzyme inhibition.Citation15 In the vast majority of patients, the use of GnRH agonists continued as the base therapy while many of these new compounds were tested. Due to the fact that the development of the new 6-month LA formulations and the new CRPC drugs were conducted at approximately the same time, little is known about their concomitant use.

Formulations

Although the active pharmacological ingredient (API) is the same for all leuprorelin acetate products, there are significant differences in the way their formulation is designed and how these differences affect their individual pharmacological profile.

Over the last few years several different manufacturers have developed a variety of GnRH agonist formulations that have been approved for a 6-month treatment interval based on their ability to suppress testosterone below the castration level of 50 ng/dL in patients with prostate cancer. These products include two formulations of the microsphere-based LA (Lupron®, Lucrin®, Daronda®, Sixantone®, Procren®, Procrin® [name varies by country]) with either 30 mg or 45 mg doses.

The 30 mg dose is mainly used in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, whereas the 45 mg doses were introduced either as microspheres (Lupron®) in the USA only or as a gel-based formulation (Eligard®) in the EU and the USA.

Based on the different delivery technologies, regardless of API, some differences in clinical performance exist between the formulations that need to be discussed. While all iterations of LA have an identical molecular structure, the delivery system of each varies considerably. For many years LA has been delivered by only using a lyophilized, microsphere, drug depot delivery system.

The microsphere-based LA products achieve their drug release in a biphasic manner. In the first phase the product is released within a relatively short time from the surface of the spheres, and this functions as the initiation dose and establishes an effective plasma concentration.Citation16 In the second phase, the microspheres are “digested” over 6 months and release the API as a maintenance dose to achieve the same constant plasma concentrations over time. The chemical compositions of the microspheres differ slightly between the 1-, 3-, 4-, and 6-month formulations and determine the timeframe over which API is released.

Eligard, on the other hand, is a gel-based formulation delivered by using a biodegradable polymer of D,L-lactide-co-glycolide dissolved in N-methyl-2-pyrolidone.Citation8 In this delivery system, the polymer is provided separately from the lyophilized drug compound (LA) and must be mixed within 30 minutes or less of injection.Citation17 It is injected in a liquid form that condenses into a solid subcutaneous depot, which releases the drug over time.Citation18 This transformation is independent of body temperature and can occur in vivo as well as ex vivo. Over the treatment period of 6 months, the gel is slowly dissolved and the API is released into the blood.

The microsphere-based LA was compared directly to the gel-based LA in only one phase I study. This single-center trial was conducted with 1-month depots (7.5 mg) in 32 healthy male volunteers (mean age 38.3 ± 8.4 years; range 21–52 years). The pharmacokinetic measurements showed an initially higher release of LA from microspheres compared to gel-based product (Cmax 27.0 ± 4.9 ng/mL versus 19.0 ± 8.0 ng/mL at Tmax 1.0 ± 0.4 hours versus 2.1 ± 0.8 hours). After an initial lower release of LA from the gel-based LA formulation, the total area under the curve was greater from the gel-based formulation than for microspheres (479 ± 132.6 ng ⋅ hours/mL versus 248 ± 65.0 ng ⋅ hours/mL), which resulted in longer testosterone suppression (49 days versus 35 days).Citation19

Based on the promising data from early development, pivotal trials were conducted to achieve registrations for the 6-month formulations. This review article identifies key publications of now commercially available 6-month depot formulations of LA and evaluates their clinical performance.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted in multiple biomedical/pharmaceutical databases beginning in June 2012. The initial search was not limited by language or publication date, and the following databases and resources were searched: Medline (1950–2012), Embase (1974–2012), SciSearch (1990–2012), Biosis Previews (1926–2012), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–2012), Derwent Drug File (1983–2012), and Pascal (1973–2012).

The major subjects for the search were leuprorelin acetate 6-month depots and prostate cancer, combined with the following keywords and phrases: mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), along with patient perspective on quality of life, product preferences, satisfaction, convenience, cost, benefit, and health economics. We excluded from the review non-English articles, reviews and duplications, nonoriginal papers and case reports.

Results

The literature search identified twelve publications for three different products: two microsphere-based leuprorelin acetate formulations of either 30 mg or 45 mg dose depots and a gel-based leuprorelin acetate 45 mg dose depot formulation.Citation1,Citation20Citation30 Of the twelve publications identified, only three original papers of the 6-month formulations fulfilled the criteria for comparison in this review ().

Table 2 Summary of included publications

Efficacy and safety

The safety and efficacy of leuprorelin acetate depots have been studied at each formulation level and published by Kienle and Lubben (1-month depot),Citation31 Tunn et al (1- and 3-month depots),Citation32 Jocham (3-month depot),Citation33 Tunn and Wiedey (3- and 6-month depots),Citation1 and Spitz et al (6-month depot)Citation20 for microsphere-based LA formulations. Gel-based LA was tested separately and published by Perez-Marreno et al (1-month depot),Citation34 Chu et al (3-month depot),Citation35 and Crawford et al (6-month depot).Citation28

Microsphere-based 30 mg LA depot

In a study by Tunn and WiedeyCitation1 comparing the LA 3-month (11.25 mg) depot to the LA 6-month (30 mg) depot formulations, efficacy parameters again included the reduction of serum testosterone to castrate levels and the reduction of PSA levels. Tunn and WiedeyCitation1 found that in 178 patients, results were similar between the two groups. Median values of testosterone and rate of response showed no relevant differences. PSA levels decreased 88% and 89% in 3-month and 6-month groups, respectively. In the 3-month treatment group, 77.6% of patients experienced an adverse event (AE) while 79.2% of patients in the 6-month group experienced an AE. Other safety variables were similar, with 3.4% and 4.2% of patients experiencing an AE leading to withdrawal, 12.1% and 15.8% of patients experiencing a serious adverse event (SAE), and two and four deaths occurring in the study in the 3-month and 6-month groups, respectively. Most common AEs included flushing (43.1%, 34.2%, respectively), increased sweating (10.3%, 5.8%), injection site induration (3.4%, 5.8%), and fatigue (1.7%, 1.7%).

Microsphere-based 45 mg LA depot

Spitz et alCitation20 also studied safety and efficacy in a microsphere-based LA 45.0 mg 6-month formulation over 12 months. The primary endpoint for this study was the proportion of patients with suppressed serum testosterone, which was achieved in 93.4% of 151 subjects within the first 4 weeks of the study and maintained for 24 weeks with each depot injection. In addition, after week 14 of the study, PSA levels were reduced to below 3 ng/mL and remained there through the end of the study. Hot flush was reported by 58.3% of subjects, injection site pain was reported by 17.9%, and fatigue was reported by 11.9%.

Gel-based 45 mg LA depot

The safety and efficacy of the gel-based LA 45.0 mg 6-month depot formulation was studied by Crawford et alCitation28 in a 12-month open-label study of 111 subjects. The primary endpoint was the reduction of serum testosterone to castrate level and the reduction of PSA. Of the 111 subjects, 93% completed the study. Testosterone suppression was achieved by 99% of subjects within 28 days (mean 21.2 days). In addition, PSA was reduced from 39.8 ± 21.5 ng/mL to 1.2 ± 0.3 ng/mL after 12 months. Eighty-two subjects reported 211 AEs, only one of which was considered to be severe and not related to the study drug. The most common AEs included hot flush, injection site burning, fatigue, testicular atrophy, and gynecomastia.

In these studies of 6-month (30 mg and 45 mg) formulations, the results of safety and efficacy endpoints were remarkably similar. Incidence of adverse events was also comparable across these studies. Results of the pivotal studies are summarized in . These studies used similar efficacy and safety endpoints and parameters, allowing a direct comparison.

Table 3 Summary of pivotal study results

Discussion

Based on the above described data, the overall efficacy and safety of all three formulations appeared to be similar. However, the amount of data is still limited so it is more important to compare clinical performance with the established 1-, 3-, and 4-month formulations.

Low-dose microsphere depot

The low-dose microsphere formulations have been studied at a variety of levels. Kienle and LubbenCitation31 assessed the long-term use of an LA 3.75 mg monthly depot formulation in patients with PCa for more than 3 years, with the aim of determining if LA could reduce and maintain testosterone to castration levels over a 45-month period. In this study, each monthly injection of LA was followed by an initial burst of LA in the blood, reaching a steady state within 2 days of injection. Testosterone levels were reduced as were dihydrotestosterone, LH, and follicle-stimulating hormone. Adverse events included fatigue (15%), headaches (5%), and local pain at injection site (4.4%).

Tunn et alCitation32 compared the LA 3.75 mg 1-month and the 11.25 mg 3-month depot formulations. In this study 15 patients received the 3.75 mg 1-month depot and a further 27 patients received the 11.25 mg 3-month depot. Both groups showed a reduction of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone to castration levels within 1 month, which was maintained over the 9-month study period. PSA was decreased to 97.8% in the 1-month depot group and 96.6% in the 3-month depot group. Both groups also showed similar disease progression at 6.7% for the 1-month group and 3% in the 3-month group. Adverse events were also similar for both groups with the most common being hot flush and sweating.

Thus, the LA low-dose formulations of 1 month (3.75 mg) and 3 months (11.25 mg) show characteristics that were repeated in the 30 mg 6-month depot formulation. Tunn and WiedeyCitation1 found that the LA 6-month depot formulation (30 mg) reduced serum testosterone to castrate levels during the first month of treatment and that these levels were maintained in the same manner as in the 1- and 3-month depot formulations. The response rate in terms of T suppression below castration level at 12 months was 98% for 6-month and 100% for 3-month formulations. The 6-month formulation was also comparable to earlier depots in the reduction of PSA, showing an 89% reduction compared to an 88% reduction in the 3-month 11.25 mg depot. Adverse events were also similar; the most common AEs were flushing, sweating, and injection site induration.

High-dose microsphere depot

High-dose LA microsphere formulations, including the 7.5 mg 1-month depot, the 22.5 mg 3-month depot, and the 45 mg 6-month depot formulations, have been studied by Sharif et alCitation36Citation38 and Spitz et al.Citation20

In a recent study, Spitz et alCitation20 found that 93.4% of patients achieved the primary endpoint of suppression of testosterone to castrate levels by the fourth week of the study, maintaining that level through 48 weeks. Flushing and injection site reactions were the most commonly reported AEs.

Gel-based high dose depot

LA is also available in 1-, 3-, and 6-month depots in the gel-based formulation. These formulations have been studied by Perez-Marreno et al,Citation34 Chu et al,Citation35 and Crawford et al.Citation28

In a 6-month study of the LA 1-month high-dose (7.5 mg) depot formulation, Perez-Marreno et alCitation34 found that the mean (standard deviation) serum testosterone level was 6.12 (4.3) ng/dL among the 120 patients and that no patient experienced a breakthrough during treatment. Again, the most common AEs were hot flashes, fatigue, dizziness, and injection site burning sensation.

Similarly, Chu et alCitation35 studied 117 patients who received a 22.5 mg 3-month depot formulation for 6 months. Serum testosterone was decreased to castrate levels in 98% of patients by day 28 and was maintained throughout the study. PSA was also decreased by 98%. The most commonly reported AEs were hot flashes, fatigue, nausea, and dizziness.

A 6-month, gel-based, LA formulation (45 mg) was studied by Crawford et al.Citation28 In this study, 111 patients received a 45 mg 6-month depot dose of LA over the course of 12 months (two injections). Of these patients, 103 completed the study; 109 patients achieved testosterone suppression by day 28, and PSA declined by 97% from baseline. Mild to moderate hot flashes were the most commonly reported AE.

Microsphere (30 and 45 mg) and gel-based (45 mg) formulations

In the three 6-month LA depot formulations studied,Citation1,Citation20,Citation28 primary endpoints of serum testosterone suppression to castrate levels, observed decreases of PSA, and incidence of adverse events were similar across the board. Efficacy endpoints for the microsphere-based LA 30 mg depot formulation showed a response rate of 98%, no progression in 90% of patients, remission rate of 58.5%, and 89% decrease in observed PSA levels. In the microsphere-based LA 45 mg 6-month depot formulation, serum testosterone was suppressed to <50 ng/dL from week 4 through week 48 in 93.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89.2%, 97.6%) of patients. For the prespecified endpoint, serum T was suppressed to <50 ng/dL from week 4 to 48 in 93.6% of subjects (90% CI 90.2%, 97.0%). The gel-based LA 45 mg depot formulation showed that a 97% reduction of serum testosterone levels was reached within 28 days and maintained until the study end. PSA levels also declined throughout the study for 96% of patients. In all of these studies, the most common AEs were hot flush, injection site reactions, and fatigue.

In studies of patient preferences, the advent of LA formulations ranging from 30 to 45 mg dose depots has greatly improved the quality of life for many prostate cancer patients.Citation39 The increased time between injections and office visits has a variety of repercussions. Fewer total injections mean reduced pain and stress for patients and should also be associated with fewer injection-site reactions. It can be hypothesized that key efficacy and safety aspects go hand-in-hand with an improvement of compliance and adherence for the 6-month formulations. In conjunction with a lower frequency of clinic visits due to a reduced need for injections or the treatment of injection-related side effects, it can be assumed that there is a pharmacoeconomic benefit for the 6-month depot even when overall product costs are the same on an annual basis.Citation40,Citation41 These aspects could remain strong regardless whether the formulations are used continuously or intermittently.Citation42 Due to the fact that drug prices differ from country to country, specific cost assessments are needed to support this pharmacoeconomic argument more broadly.

Conclusion

All three 6-month LA formulations fulfilled the efficacy and safety criteria for the registration in countries of submission based on their pivotal trial data. These products are an additional tool in the treatment of prostate cancer. Due to their longer treatment duration, an improvement of compliance and adherence for the 6-month formulations could be considered. In conjunction with a lower frequency of clinic visits due to a reduced need for injections or the treatment of injection-related side effects, it can be assumed that there is a pharmacoeconomic benefit for the 6-month depot even when overall product costs are the same on an annual basis. Based on these arguments, it can be postulated that the 6-month depots could become preferred formulations for both physicians and for patients with stable disease.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Elaine Hanna of AbbVie for medical writing and editorial assistance and Kristina Kligys of AbbVie for editorial assistance.

Disclosure

Dr Tunn has no conflict of interest to declare. Drs Gruca and Bacher are employees of AbbVie and own Abbott and/or AbbVie stock. AbbVie is the producer of two products discussed in this article.

References

  • TunnUWWiedeyKSafety and clinical efficacy of a new 6-month depot formulation of leuprorelin acetate in patients with prostate cancer in EuropeProstate Cancer P D20091218387
  • AndroustosGJohn Hunter (1728–1793): fondateur de la chirugie scientifque etpercurseur de l’urologicProg Urol19988108710969894276
  • HugginsCHodgesCVStudies on prostatic cancer: I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostateCancer Res19411293297
  • HugginsCStevensREHodgesCVStudies on prostatic cancer. II. The effect of castration on advanced carcinoma of the prostate glandArch Surg-Chicago194143209228
  • WeinLRKAlanJNovickAndrew CPartinAlan WPetersCraig ACampbell-Walsh Urology9th edPhiladelphia, PAElsevier2007
  • SchallyAVKastinAJArimuraAHypothalamic follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH)-regulating hormone: structure, physiology, and clinical studiesFertil Steril197122117037214941683
  • SeidenfeldJSamsonDJHasselbladVSingle-therapy androgen suppression in men with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysisAnn Intern Med2000132756657710744594
  • CoxMCScriptureCDFiggWDLeuprolide acetate given by a subcutaneous extended-release injection: less of a pain?Expert Rev Anticancer Ther20055460561116111462
  • CrawfordEDPhillipsJMSix-month gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist depots provide efficacy, safety, convenience, and comfortCancer Manag Res2011320120921847353
  • MottetNBellmuntJBollaMEAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancerEur Urol201159457258321315502
  • PersadRLeuprorelin acetate in prostate cancer: a European updateInt J Clin Pract200256538939612137449
  • LabrieFMedical castration with LHRH agonists: 25 years later with major benefits achieved on survival in prostate cancerJ Androl200425330531315064303
  • LockeJAGunsESLubikAAAndrogen levels increase by intratumoral de novo steroidogenesis during progression of castration-resistant prostate cancerCancer Res200868156407641518676866
  • ShoreNMasonMde ReijkeTMNew developments in castrate-resistant prostate cancerBJU Int2012109Suppl 6223222672122
  • CannataDHKirschenbaumALevineACAndrogen deprivation therapy as primary treatment for prostate cancerJ Clin Endocrinol Metab201297236036522162475
  • LeeMBrownellerRWuZJungARatanawongCSharifiRTherapeutic effects of leuprorelin microspheres in prostate cancerAdv Drug Deliv Rev199728112113810837568
  • TombalBBergesREligard. Advantages for optimal testosterone controlEur Urol Suppl2007518900904
  • RavivarapuHBMoyerKLDunnRLSustained activity and release of leuprolide acetate from an in situ forming polymeric implantAAPS Pharm Sci Tech200011E1
  • Perez-MarreroRTylerRCA subcutaneous delivery system for the extended release of leuprolide acetate for the treatment of prostate cancerExpert Opin Pharmacother20045244745714996640
  • SpitzAYoungJMLarsenLMattia-GoldbergCDonnellyJChwaliszKEfficacy and safety of leuprolide acetate 6-month depot for suppression of testosterone in patients with prostate cancerProstate Cancer P D20121519399
  • CrawfordDPhillipsESix-month gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist depots provide efiicacy, safety, convenience, and comfortCancer Manag Res20113120120921847353
  • OuzaidIRoupretMThe role of a 6-month depot form of hormone therapy in the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer: Results from the ‘ELIRE’ observational studyProg Urol2011211286687422035913
  • TunnUWA 6-month depot formulation of leuprolide acetate is safe and effective in daily clinical practice: a non-interventional prospective study in 1273 patientsBMC Urol2011111521801354
  • ChavezBReillyTManic and psychotic symptoms following subcutaneous leuprolide in a male patient with no prior psychiatric historyJ Clin Psy2010711216961698
  • MostafaNChwaliszKLarsenLPharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Leuprolide Acetate 6-Month Depot in Patients With Prostate CancerJ Clinv Pharmacol2010501091
  • SethiRSanfilippoNSix-month depot formulation of leuprorelin acetate in the treatment of prostate cancerClin Interv Aging2009425926719554097
  • Eligard BergesRSUP (R) 6: achieving optimal testosterone control with the convenience of a twice -a-year formulationEur Urol Suppl2007615840845
  • CrawfordEDSartorOChuFPerezRKarlinGGarrettJSA 12-month clinical study of LA-2585 (45.0 mg): a new 6-month subcutaneous delivery system for leuprolide acetate for the treatment of prostate cancerJ Urol2006175253353616406989
  • AmoFHComparative analysis of six months formulation of LHRH analogues for prostate cancer treatmentArch Esp Urol201063427528120508303
  • YoungJMSpitzALarsenLMattia-GoldbergCDonnellyJChwaliszKEfficacy and safety of a 6-month depot leuprolide acetate for the treatment of prostate cancer: results of a 48-week studyJ Clin Oncol2010Supplemente15042
  • KienleELubbenGEfficacy and safety of leuprorelin acetate depot for prostate cancer. The German Leuprorelin Study GroupUrol Int199656Suppl 123308776814
  • TunnUWBargelloniUCoscianiSFiaccaventoGGuazzieriSPaganoFComparison of LH–RH analogue 1-month depot and 3-month depot by their hormone levels and pharmacokinetic profile in patients with advanced prostate cancerUrol Int199860Suppl 1916 discussion16179563139
  • JochamDLeuprorelin three-month depot in the treatment of advanced and metastatic prostate cancer: long-term follow-up resultsUrol Int199860Suppl 21824 discussion359607554
  • Perez-MarrenoRChuFMGleasonDLoizidesEWachsBTylerRCA six-month, open-label study assessing a new formulation of leuprolide 7.5 mg for suppression of testosterone in patients with prostate cancerClin Ther200224111902191412501882
  • ChuFMJaysonMDineenMKPerezRHarkawayRTylerRCA clinical study of 22.5 mg. La-2550: a new subcutaneous depot delivery system for leuprolide acetate for the treatment of prostate cancerJ Urol200216831199120312187267
  • SharifRSolowayMClinical study of leuprolide depot formulation in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. The Leuprolide Study GroupJ Urol1990143168712104638
  • SharifRBruskewitzRCGittlemanMCGrahamSDJrHudsonPBSteinBLeuprolide acetate 22.5 mg 12-week depot formulation in the treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancerClin Ther19961846476578879893
  • SharifRBrownellerRSerum testosterone suppression and potential for agonistic stimulation during chronic treatment with monthly and 3-month depot formulations of leuprolide acetate for advanced prostate cancerJ Urol200216831001100412187208
  • SchulmanCAssessing the attitudes to prostate cancer treatment among European male patientsBJU Int2007100Suppl 161117593202
  • OdeyemiIABergesRBolodeokuJEconomic impact of different preparations of leuprolide acetate in the management of advanced prostate cancerJ Med Econ2007102135146
  • TundiaNLFuldeoreMGrucaDHassSBacherPBodhaniACost effectiveness of treatment with new 6-month leoprorelin acetate formulation in patients with advanced prostate cancerPaper presented at: ISPOR 15th Annual European Congress2012Berlin, Germany
  • GrucaDBacherPTunnUSafety and tolerability of intermittent androgen deprivation therapy: a literature reviewInt J Urol201219761462522435512
  • D’AmicoAVWhittingtonRBruce MalkowiczSBiochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancerJAMA1998290119699749749478