help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM JCEM Call for Nominations for EIC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nolten, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Werk, E. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nolten, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Werk, E. E., Jr

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol 43, 1226-1233, Copyright © 1976 by Endocrine Society

ARTICLES

The effects of diethylstilbestrol and medroxyprogesterone acetate on kinetics and production of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in patients with prostatic carcinoma

WE Nolten, LJ Sholiton, LS Srivastava, HC Knowles Jr and EE Werk Jr

Alterations in the metabolism of testosterone (T) and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) induced by diethylstilbestrol (DES) or medroxprogesterone acetate (MPA) could account for the beneficial therapeutic effect of these agents in prostatic carcinoma. To investigate this possibility we sutdied plasma kinetics of T and DHT in 17 elderly patients with prostatic carcinoma, before and after treatment with DES (1 or 5 mg/d) or MPA (10 or 30 mg/d) for 30 days. Metabolic clearance rates (MCR) were determined with the single injection technique and by use of two compartment model, plasma concentrations (PC) of T and DHT by radioimmunoassay, the per cent of T bound to plasma protein (T-binding) by charcoal adsorption of the unbound steroid. Production rate (PR) and PC of T were lower, PR and PC of DHT were higher in our patients than in normal men. With both DES regimens, PR, PC and MCR of either androgen declined; however, T was suppressed to a much greater extent than DHT. In either instance, the decrease may have been caused by direct suppression of testicular androgen synthesis and/or by decreased gonadotropin stimulation. Enhanced T-binding played an additional role in reducing the free testosterone index. High and low dose of DES were equally effective. The low dose regimen of MPA did not influence androgen metabolism. MPA in the higher dose suppressed PR and PC of T and DHT, possibly due to effects on testicular synthesis or by gonadotropin suppression as suggested for DES. In contrast to DES, MPA failed to cause profound changes in MCR of either androgen or in T-binding. When judged by its influence on the metabolism of T and DHT in prostatic carcinoma, MPA in higher doses is much less effective than either dose regimen of DES.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals
Copyright © 1976 by The Endocrine Society