Controversies in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer

David G. McLeod, E. David Crawford, Brent A. Blumenstein, Mario A. Eisenberger, F. Andrew Dorr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


Background. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men today. Unfortunately, at the time of diagnosis, most men will have either regional or distant metastatic disease. Methods. Six hundred three patients with advanced prostate cancer who could be examined were randomized in a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial to receive the luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist leuprolide with either flutamide or placebo. Results. Patients receiving the combined therapy arm of leuprolide and flutamide had an increased progression‐free survival time of 16.9 versus 13.8 months and a survival advantage of 35.1 versus 20.3 months. A more striking difference was found in the subset of patients receiving combination therapy who had good performance and minimal disease. Conclusions. There appears to be a definite advantage of combination therapy over leuprolide alone, especially in patients with minimal disease and good performance. Another larger intergroup study using orchiectomy and flutamide versus orchiectomy and placebo is currently underway.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)324-328
Number of pages5
Issue number1 S
StatePublished - Jul 1 1992
Externally publishedYes


  • combined androgen blockade
  • metastatic disease
  • prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research


Dive into the research topics of 'Controversies in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this