Maximum androgen blockade: A case study report

D. W.W. Newling, Hideyuki Akaza, Jens Altwein, David Castro Diaz, Marc Colombel, Malcolm Coptcoat, Frans Debruyne, Martin Gleave, Yoshihiko Hirao, Peter Iversen, Roger Kirby, Jerome P. Richie, Selichiro Ozono, Mike Sarosdy, Mark Soloway, Pierre Teillac

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


The use of maximum androgen blockade (MAB) in advanced prostate cancer remains controversial due to conflicting data from clinical trials. Some of the trials that report no advantage of MAB over monotherapy have been criticized on a number of points, including a lack of statistical power and too short a follow-up period. Three randomized trials, SWOG-INT 0036, EORTC-30853 and the Anandron Study Group Trial, report a survival advantage and a longer time to disease progression with MAB, although only one reaches statistical significance. The widespread use of MAB is controversial on the basis of the available clinical data. It has been suggested that three clinical situations exist for its use in advanced cancer: in symptomatic disease; as neoadjuvant therapy prior to radiotherapy; and for the prevention of flare following the use of luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone analogues as monotherapy. Case studies are presented in this article involving the use of MAB in these circumstances, as well as its use under other conditions. MAB fits into an algorithm of progressive step-up therapy and by tailoring hormonal therapy to individual patients and their tumours we may improve survival and define further the future role of MAB.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)203-212
Number of pages10
JournalProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2000


  • Antiandrogens
  • Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues
  • Maximum androgen blockade
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Maximum androgen blockade: A case study report'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this