©TheCanadian Journal ofUrology™: International Supplement, April 2014
8. Tombal B,MillerK, Boccon-GibodLet al.Additional analysis
of the secondary end point of biochemical recurrence rate
in a phase 3 trial (CS21) comparing degarelix 80 mg versus
leuprolide in prostate cancer patients segmented by baseline
characteristics.
EurUrol
2010;57(5):836-842.
9. Schröder FH, Tombal B, Miller K et al. Changes in alkaline
phosphatase levels in patients with prostate cancer receiving
degarelixor leuprolide: results froma12-month, comparative,
phase III study.
BJU Int
2010;106(2):182-187.
10.AlbertsenPC,KlotzL,TombalB,Grady J,OlesenTK,Nilsson J.
Cardiovascular morbidity associated with gonadotropin
releasing hormone agonists and an antagonist.
Eur Urol
2014;65(3):565-573.
11.Moul JW. Prostate cancer: making the switch from LHRH
antagonist toLHRH agonist.
NatRevUrol
2012;9(3):125-126.
12.HatoumHT, Crawford ED, Nielsen SK, Lin SJ, Marshall DC.
Cost-effectivenessanalysiscomparingdegarelixwith leuprolide
inhormonaltherapy forpatientswith locallyadvancedprostate
cancer.
ExpertRevPharmacoeconOutcomesRes
2013;13(2):261-270.
13.Perachino M, Eandi M. The utility of a model-based cost-
effectiveness analysis of degarelix versus leuprolide in the
therapy of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer.
FarmEconomia
2013;14(3):131-146.
27
Moul
