Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Patient and Carer Experience of Chemotherapy (Docetaxel) in Combination with Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (mHSPC)

Metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer patients' experience with Radium-223 treatment in Japan

Aim: We aimed to determine Japanese metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients' Ra-223 treatment experience. Patients & methods: Patients answered the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ domains: Satisfaction with Therapy [SWT], Expectations of Therapy [ET], Feelings about Side Effects [FSE]), the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) and the FACT-Bone Pain (FACT-BP) Questionnaire at baseline, during (vists 3 and 5) and after treatment (end of observation; EOO). Results: Data from 72 patients were included. Baseline median CTSQ scores SWT: 66.1 (IQR19.7), ET: 75.0 (IQR45), and FSE 68.8 (IQR 34.4) were unchanged during vists 3 and 5, but the SWT (-3.57 [IQR17.9]) and ET (-5.0 [IQR30]) decreased while FSE was unchanged (0.0 [IQR31.25]) at EOO. The median MAX-PC (18.0 [IQR 49]) score was unchanged (0.0, IQR 6) while the median FACT BP (54.0 [IQR13]) score decreased by -1.0 (IQR 8) at EOO. Conclusion: Japanese metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer patients' experience is stable during Ra-223 treatment.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Psychosocial Aspects of Living Long Term with Advanced Cancer and Ongoing Systemic Treatment: A Scoping Review

(1) Background: Studies examining the psychosocial impact of living long term on systemic treatment in advanced cancer patients are scarce. This scoping review aimed to answer the research question “What has been reported about psychosocial factors among patients living with advanced cancer receiving life-long systemic treatment?”, by synthesizing psychosocial data, and evaluating the terminology used to address these patients; (2) Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the five stages of the framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005); (3) Results: 141 articles published between 2000 and 2021 (69% after 2015) were included. A large variety of terms referring to the patient group was observed. Synthesizing qualitative studies identified ongoing uncertainty, anxiety and fear of disease progression or death, hope in treatment results and new treatment options, loss in several aspects of life, and worries about the impact of disease on loved ones and changes in social life to be prominent psychosocial themes. Of 82 quantitative studies included in the review, 76% examined quality of life, 46% fear of disease progression or death, 26% distress or depression, and 4% hope, while few studies reported on adaptation or cognitive aspects. No quantitative studies focused on uncertainty, loss, or social impact; (4) Conclusion and clinical implications: Prominent psychosocial themes reported in qualitative studies were not included in quantitative research using specific validated questionnaires. More robust studies using quantitative research designs should be conducted to further understand these psychological constructs. Furthermore, the diversity of terminology found in the literature calls for a uniform definition to better address this specific patient group in research and in practice.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A survey of UK Uro-oncologists

AIM

To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding their use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

METHODS

An expert-devised paper or online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group.

RESULTS

All respondents stated that they would offer patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) if they were sufficiently fit to receive chemotherapy (this was the only option available at the time of the survey); 64% would strongly recommend docetaxel for those with high-volume metastatic disease and 31% for those with low-volume disease. Hypothetically, if both docetaxel and ARTAs were available in the United Kingdom for mHSPC, almost 65% of respondents would recommend an ARTA with ADT to these patients in at least one-half of all cases, with the strongest recommendations to patients with high-risk disease. Imaging for the response was conducted according to suspicion of disease progression, regardless of treatment, with the minority of clinicians recommending routine imaging. If a choice of therapy was available, docetaxel would be more likely to be offered to patients with liver or lung metastases, and ARTAs to patients with bone or lymph node only metastases. Almost all respondents would offer local radiotherapy to the primary tumour in patients with low-volume disease.

CONCLUSION

All the UK uro-oncologists surveyed stated that they would offer docetaxel in combination with ADT to all newly diagnosed patients with mHSPC if fit enough for chemotherapy. ARTAs would be offered to many patients if available, especially those with high-risk disease or those unfit to receive chemotherapy. Scanning was typically conducted following treatment only at the suspicion of disease progression.

Greater treatment satisfaction in patients receiving daratumumab subcutaneous vs. intravenous for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: COLUMBA clinical trial results

PURPOSE

The phase III COLUMBA study evaluated daratumumab (DARA) intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report patient-reported satisfaction with therapy (SWT) in COLUMBA.

METHODS

DARA IV or DARA SC was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks (cycles 7 +). Patients completed a modified version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) at weekly (cycles 1-2) and monthly (cycles 3 +) intervals and at the end of treatment. Results for each item and the SWT domain score were summarized using descriptive statistics. The distribution of responses for individual items was calculated for each assessment. The proportion of patients for whom SWT domain score change from first assessment met or exceeded the minimally important difference (MID) of 5.9 points was calculated at each assessment time point.

RESULTS

Two-hundred fifty-nine patients were randomized to DARA IV and 263 to DARA SC. Mean scores for SWT domain questions were high and largely positive during treatment. Responses indicating positive perceptions of therapy were given by a numerically greater proportion of patients in the DARA SC group than the DARA IV group for most questions. Changes from the first assessment in SWT domain scores met or exceeded the MID for an average of ~ 40% of patients.

CONCLUSION

In COLUMBA, modified CTSQ results suggest patients in the DARA SC group were more satisfied with their cancer therapy than those in the DARA IV group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03277105. Registered September 8, 2107.

Systemic treatment for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer: Does seqence matter?

BACKGROUND

Optimal sequencing of systemic therapy in the management for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains poorly elucidated. The CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies have proven that early chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting yields a greater net survival advantage than docetaxel for mCRPC. In a retrospective study, we attempt to investigate the two most common treatment sequences for mCRPC and investigate whether earlier chemotherapy for mCRPC is consequential to survival outcomes.

METHODS

We identified 112 patients with mCRPC treated at the Mayo Clinic between 2011 and 2017. We identified two cohorts, 80 patients (group A) received full course docetaxel chemotherapy followed by second generation hormone therapy (2nd gen androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; Abiraterone or Enzalutamide) and 32 patients (group B) treated with 2nd gen ADT followed by docetaxel. The primary endpoint evaluated was 3-year cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

Mean prostate specific antigen at initiation of first treatment was 32.0 in group A and 21.7 in group B (P = .4). Bone metastases were more prevalent in group B (87% vs 58%, P = .01). All other clinicopathologic variables were statistically similar between group A and group B. Three-year cancer-specific survival was 87.4% vs 64.1% for group A and group B, respectively (P = .016). We report a univariate hazard ratio of 3.61 (95% CI, 1.74-9.5, 0 P = .01). Three-year overall survival was 82.4% and 60.8% for group A and group B, P = .01. These results held true when excluding patients with lymph node only metastasi.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicates that sequence of systemic therapy may influence outcomes for mCRPC and that docetaxel should be considered before 2nd generation ADT. Our results support the importance of earlier chemotherapy in the castration resistant state.