The AVOCAT study: Bicalutamide monotherapy versus combined bicalutamide plus dutasteride therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the prostate—a long-term follow-up comparison and quality of life analysis

• Published in: SpringerPlus Vol. 5; no. 1; p. 653
• Main Authors: Dijkstra, Siebren, Witjes, Wim P. J., Roos, Erik P. M., Vijverberg, Peter L. M., Geboers, Arno D. H., Bruins, Jos L., Smits, Geert A. H. J., Vergunst, Henk, Mulders, Peter F. A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 17.05.2016; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Humanities and Social Sciences; Medicine; multidisciplinary; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Urology; Dutasteride; 5α-Reductase inhibitor; Bicalutamide; Overall survival; Prostate cancer; PSA progression
• ISSN: 2193-1801; 2193-1801
• DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2280-8

Purpose Compare the efficacy and tolerability of dutasteride in combination with bicalutamide to bicalutamide monotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Methods One-hundred-fifty PCa patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg once daily (79 patients) or bicalutamide 150 mg plus dutasteride 0.5 mg once daily (71 patients). Treatment response was assessed by serum PSA level measurement, and standard procedures for diagnosis of clinical progression were used during follow-up. Patient-reported quality of life (QoL) was assessed using validated questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25). Results At 3 years follow-up, PSA progression was found in 52 patients [65.8 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 55.4–76.3] in the monotherapy group compared to 38 patients (53.5 %; 95 % CI 41.9–65.1) in the combined therapy group (p = 0.134). At the time of analysis 37 men (46.8 %; 95 % CI 35.8–57.8) in the monotherapy group had died versus 30 men (42.3 %; 95 % CI 30.8–53.7) in the combined therapy group. Median survival time was 5.4 and 5.8 years, respectively (p = 0.694). There was no statistically significant difference in the presentation frequency of adverse events between groups (p = 0.683). QoL was good and comparable between the two groups. Conclusions Both therapies were well tolerated with a good QoL. However, despite a trend toward higher efficacy of the combined therapy, progression-free survival and overall survival was not significantly different between the groups. Further research on this therapy should be performed.