Transdermal Estradiol Patches in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Men with locally advanced prostate cancer (M0 and N0 or N+), median age 72 years, 85% with T3 tumor stage |
| I — Intervention | Transdermal estradiol patches (100 μg estradiol every 24 hours) |
| C — Comparator | Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists |
| O — Outcomes | Primary: 3-year metastasis-free survival. Secondary: castrate testosterone levels, overall survival, safety including hot flashes and gynecomastia |
Bottom Line
This large UK multicentre trial demonstrates that transdermal estradiol patches are non-inferior to LHRH agonists for preventing metastasis in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. The primary endpoint of 3-year metastasis-free survival was similar between groups (87.1% vs 85.9%), with the confidence interval meeting pre-specified non-inferiority criteria. The key clinical trade-off involves side effect profiles: transdermal estradiol significantly reduced hot flashes (44% vs 89%) but increased gynecomastia (85% vs 42%). Both treatments achieved similar rates of testosterone suppression (85% maintaining castrate levels). Five-year overall survival was numerically higher with estradiol patches (81.1% vs 79.2%) but not statistically significant. This provides clinicians with an evidence-based alternative to LHRH agonists, particularly valuable for patients experiencing severe vasomotor symptoms. The open-label design and unclear follow-up rates represent methodological limitations, but the large sample size and long-term follow-up strengthen the findings.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported in abstract
Effect Size: Hazard ratio 0.96 for confirmed metastasis or death
Primary Outcome: 3-year metastasis-free survival: 87.1% (tE2) vs 85.9% (LHRH agonists)
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Non-inferiority demonstrated (upper CI 1.11 < margin 1.31). NNT not calculable from provided data
Confidence Interval: Upper limit of one-sided 95% CI: 1.11
Clinical Application
Requires daily patch application and monitoring for gynecomastia. May need dose adjustments and patient education about application technique Would require TGA approval for this indication. Cost-effectiveness assessment needed for PBS listing. Aligns with RACGP guidelines supporting patient choice in ADT options Men with locally advanced prostate cancer requiring androgen deprivation therapy, particularly those experiencing significant hot flashes with LHRH agonists
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transdermal estradiol (tE2) is an alternative to luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists as androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. With tE2, testosterone is suppressed, and the side effects of estrogen depletion due to LHRH agonists and the thromboembolic side effects of oral estrogen are mitigated. METHODS: In this phase 3, noninferiority, randomized trial, we assigned men with locally advanced (M0 and N0 or N+) prostate cancer to receive tE2 patches (100 μg of estradiol every 24 hours) or LHRH agonists. The primary outcome was 3-year metastasis-free survival. The noninferiority margin was 4 percentage points; this corresponded to a target hazard ratio of 1.31, as derived from the observed 3-year metastasis-free survival in the LHRH agonist group. Secondary outcomes included castrate levels of testosterone (<1.7 nmol per liter), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2022, we recruited 1360 patients at 75 U.K. centers. The median age of the patients was 72 years (interquartile range, 68 to 77); 85% had a T3 tumor stage and 65% an N0 nodal stage. Observed 3-year metastasis-free survival was 87.1% with tE2 and 85.9% with LHRH agonists (hazard ratio for confirmed metastasis or death, 0.96; upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11, which met the criterion for noninferiority). Among patients continuing the assigned treatment, castrate levels of testosterone were sustained during the first year after randomization in 85% in each group. Observed 5-year overall survival was 81.1% with tE2 and 79.2% with LHRH agonists (hazard ratio for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07). During treatment, hot flashes occurred in 44% of the patients who received tE2 and 89% of those who received LHRH agonists (grade ≥2 events, 8% and 37%, respectively) and gynecomastia in 85% and 42% (grade ≥2 events, 37% and 9%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, tE2 was noninferior to LHRH agonists for 3-year metastasis-free survival, with a lower incidence of hot flashes but a higher incidence of gynecomastia. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and the U.K. Research Institute Medical Research Council; PATCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00303784; STAMPEDE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476.).
References
- 1.Langley, R. E., Gilbert, D. C., Mangar, S., Rosen, S., Bourmaki, E., Rush, H. L., Kananga Sundaram, S., Alhasso, A., Kockelbergh, R., Abdel-Aty, H., Amos, C. L., Brown, L., Brown, S., Carvalho, C., Chan, K., Collins, G., Cross, W., Deighan, J., Dixit, S., Duong, T., Dyer, J., Gale, J., Gillessen, S., Griffiths, A., Laniado, M., Lydon, A., McPhail, N., MacNair, A., Madaan, S., Marshall, J., Matheson, D., Millman, R., Mohamed, W., Murphy, L., Narahari, K., Parker, C., Panades, M., Pope, A., Raval, A., Robinson, A., Russell, M., Scrase, C., Sydes, M., Turo, R., Venkitaraman, R., Wade, S., Kynaston, H., Attard, G., James, N. D., Clarke, N., Parmar, M. K., & Nankivell, M. (2026). Transdermal estradiol patches in locally advanced prostate cancer. *New England Journal of Medicine*. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2511781
Related Research
The American journal of pathology
An Integrated Machine Learning and Genomic Framework for Precise Detection of Gastric Cancer
3 Aug 2026
Current opinion in chemical biology
Prediction of protein-protein interactions and co-complex models with deep learning
3 Aug 2026
European journal of radiology
A CT-based deep learning model to differentiate between benign and malignant adrenal lesions
3 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service