Complete androgen blockade for prostate cancer: What went wrong?

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Purpose: We summarized and critically assessed all available data from phase III clinical trials on complete androgen blockade versus surgical or medical castration alone. Materials and Methods: Published results in journals and abstracts of phase III trials, and published meta-analyses were reviewed. We also reviewed quality of life and toxicity issues associated with the addition of antiandrogens to medical or surgical castration. Finally, we discuss the original rationale for complete androgen blockade in the context of current knowledge. Results: A total of 27 clinical trials using various combinations of androgen deprivation were identified, of which 3 showed a statistically significant benefit for the complete androgen blockade arm. There were 5 publications of meta-analyses that each used different selection criteria for the inclusion of studies in the final analysis. Toxicity and quality of life have not been widely investigated in prospective fashion but the available data suggest a higher toxicity rate and decreased quality of life with complete androgen blockade. Conclusions: The extensive body of data does not support routine use of antiandrogens in combination with medical or surgical castration as first line hormonal therapy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-9
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Urology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jul 2000


  • Androgen antagonists
  • Castration
  • Male
  • Neoplasm metastasis
  • Prostate
  • Prostatic neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Complete androgen blockade for prostate cancer: What went wrong?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this