Variations of serum testosterone levels in prostate cancer patients under LH-releasing hormone therapy: an open question

Abstract

The hypothesis ‘the lower the better when achieving castration levels of testosterone’ is based on the data from second-line hormonal manipulation and its molecular basis, and on better oncological results reported for lower castration levels in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, including those achieved with maximal androgen blockade. In this regard, the equivalence of surgical and different pharmacological castrations has been controversial. The modified amino acid structure that makes LH-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogs more potent than LHRH, and the method of delivering the analogs impacts on bioavailibility and potentially causes differences in androgen levels and in its final oncological efficacy. In addition to this, there is a myriad of circumstances, such as those related to ethnic variations and co-morbidities, which uniquely impact on the pharmacological approach in a highly heterogeneous population of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. Ineffective testosterone suppression through hormonal escape is currently poorly recognized and may result in increased PCa mortality. Until now, the optimal serum testosterone level in patients under castration, and the impact of its variations in patients under LHRH therapy, remain open questions and have been merged to a broad spectra of patients who are highly heterogeneous. This heterogeneity relates to a number of mechanisms regarding response to treatment, which influences the biology of the relapsing tumor and the sensitivity to subsequent therapies in the individual patient. The rationale to achieve testosterone levels below 20–50 ng/dl warrant further investigation as these levels have recently rescued CRPC patients. In the last few years and months, important advancements in prostate cancer treatment have been achieved. Nevertheless, these advances are measured in a few months of additional survival and under high costs, not available to most of the world population, compared with the benefits of hormonal manipulation that are measured in years, there is a huge potential for accessible and durable effect expansion and optimization of treatment, particularly with the current tendency of a more individual approach.