Degarelix monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus anti-androgen flare protection in advanced prostate cancer: an analysis of two randomized controlled trials.

Iversen P, Damber JE, Malmberg A, Persson BE, Klotz L

Therapeutic advances in urology16 Dec 2015Cited by 16 (Europe PMC)

PMID27034720PMCIDPMC4772358DOI10.1177/1756287215621471PepBankPUB-27034720

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study4

4 results from studies that gave the peptide. 4 results from people.

01HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome
In prostate cancer patients, degarelix was linked to less PSA progression-free survival failure than LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen (adjusted HR 0.56).
In plain wordsIn prostate cancer patients, degarelix was linked to less PSA progression-free survival failure than LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen.
Peptide
Degarelix
Outcome
DecreasePSA progression-free survival failure
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen flare protection
Outcome group
Tumor growth · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Adjusted hazard ratio for PSA PFS failure
0.56 HR
degarelix vs LHRH agonist + AA, Cox model
95% CI
0.33 to 0.97 HR
adjusted analysis
P
0.038
adjusted analysis
Source sentences
Summary
Overall, prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) was improved with degarelix versus LHRH agonist + AA (Cox proportional hazards regression model-adjusted HR for PSA PFS failure was 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.97, p = 0.038]).
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA.
Summary · context
The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator's discretion.
Report a problemFND-2703472001
02HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome
In prostate cancer patients, case-control analysis favored degarelix over LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen for PSA PFS (OR 0.42, p = 0.023).
In plain wordsIn prostate cancer patients, case-control analysis linked degarelix to better PSA progression-free survival than LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen.
Peptide
Degarelix
Outcome
DecreasePSA PFS case-control estimate
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen flare protection
Outcome group
Tumor growth · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Odds ratio for PSA PFS
0.42 OR
overall population, case-control analysis
95% CI
0.2 to 0.89 OR
overall population
P
0.023
overall population
Source sentences
Summary
This resulted in an OR for PSA PFS of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20-0.89; p = 0.023) in the overall population, and 0.35 (95% CI 0.13-0.96; p = 0.042) in patients with PSA >50 ng/ml at baseline, when treated with degarelix versus LHRH agonists + AA.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA.
Summary · context
The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator's discretion.
Report a problemFND-2703472002
03HumanObservational studyEfficacy outcome
In prostate cancer patients with PSA >50 ng/ml, case-control analysis favored degarelix over LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen (OR 0.35, p = 0.042).
In plain wordsIn prostate cancer patients with high baseline PSA, case-control analysis favored degarelix over LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen.
Peptide
Degarelix
Outcome
DecreasePSA PFS with baseline PSA >50 ng/ml
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen flare protection
Outcome group
Tumor growth · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Odds ratio for PSA PFS
0.35 OR
baseline PSA >50 ng/ml, case-control analysis
95% CI
0.13 to 0.96 OR
PSA >50 ng/ml
P
0.042
PSA >50 ng/ml
Source sentences
Summary
This resulted in an OR for PSA PFS of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20-0.89; p = 0.023) in the overall population, and 0.35 (95% CI 0.13-0.96; p = 0.042) in patients with PSA >50 ng/ml at baseline, when treated with degarelix versus LHRH agonists + AA.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA.
Summary · context
The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator's discretion.
Report a problemFND-2703472003
04HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In prostate cancer patients, there were a small number of deaths: 1.9% with degarelix versus 7% with LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen (case-control OR 0.37, p = 0.085).
In plain wordsIn prostate cancer patients, few deaths occurred: 1.9% with degarelix and 7% with an LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen (p = 0.085).
Peptide
Degarelix
Outcome
DecreaseDeaths
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
LHRH agonist plus antiandrogen flare protection
Outcome group
Mortality · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · 1 yearAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Deaths
1.9%
degarelix
Deaths
7%
LHRH agonist + AA
Odds ratio for deaths
0.37 OR
case-control analysis
P
0.085
case-control analysis
Source sentences
Summary
There were a small number of deaths, 1.9% with degarelix and 7% with LHRH agonists + AA (case-control analysis OR = 0.37; p = 0.085).
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA.
Summary · context
The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator's discretion.
Report a problemFND-2703472004

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

Version 2Current
28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC
Study results updated
Version 1
27 Oct 2026, 16:34 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

Publication types

Keywords

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.