Fatigue, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life among patients receiving novel drugs suppressing androgen signalling for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

Fatigue in Prostate Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion and Thematic Literature Review

Context

Cancer and its treatments cause fatigue in up to 90% of men with advanced prostate cancer. As men with prostate cancer are surviving longer, cancer-related fatigue is becoming increasingly important for clinicians to understand and proactively manage.

Objective

The aim of this work is to identify knowledge gaps that may support healthcare professionals to recommend personalised fatigue management strategies.

Evidence acquisition

This manuscript is based on a roundtable discussion held during the European Association of Urology 2022 Annual Symposium, combined with a review of the literature. Five core themes were generated from the roundtable: (1) meaning of fatigue in prostate cancer patients, (2) impact of fatigue, (3) association between fatigue and treatment selection, (4) benefits of managing fatigue, and (5) barriers to exercise.

Evidence synthesis

Cancer-related fatigue has complex underlying aetiology and is a subjective experience that may be under-reported. Some studies have shown that techniques such as education, cognitive behavioural therapy, guided imagery, and progressive muscle relaxation can result in clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue. However, the largest body of evidence, and a theme echoed in the roundtable discussions, was the benefit of exercise on fatigue. Despite the benefits of exercise, for some men, objective barriers to exercise exist and knowledge of benefits does not automatically translate into implementation and adherence.

Conclusions

Understanding the specific health needs of individual patients and their desired health outcomes is essential to identify personalised strategies for minimising fatigue. As an outcome of the roundtable meeting, we developed a quick reference guide for healthcare providers. A high-resolution copy can be downloaded from https://patients.uroweb.org/library/fatigue-in-prostate-cancer-patients-guide/.

Patient summary

This article is based on dialogue between a group of specialists, patients, and caregivers, which took place at a roundtable meeting during the European Association of Urology 2022 Annual Symposium. The group discussed how healthcare providers can best support their patients who experience fatigue. The group subsequently developed a guide to help healthcare providers during appointments.

Real-world outcomes for first line next-generation hormonal agents in metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review

Aim: This review aims to summarize published evidence on the real-world (RW) outcomes of abiraterone or enzalutamide in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Materials & methods: Studies reporting on RW effectiveness, safety, economic and/or health-related quality of life outcomes were identified by systematic literature review (2011-2021, incl. Embase®, MEDLINE®) and presented in a qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I or the Molinier checklist. Results: 88 studies (n = 83,427 patients) were included. Median progression-free (40 studies) and overall survival (38 studies) ranged from 3.7 to 20.9 months and 9.8 to 45 months, respectively. Survival, safety and economic outcomes were similar across individual treatments, while limited health-related quality of life evidence suggested improvements with abiraterone. Risk of bias was moderate to high. Conclusion: RW outcomes in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remain poor despite treatment, highlighting an unmet need for new regimens. This review was supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Treatment landscape and burden of disease in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: systematic and structured literature reviews

Purpose

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a lethal disease that imposes a major burden on patients and healthcare systems. Three structured literature reviews (treatment guidelines, treatment landscape, and human/clinical/patient burden) and one systematic literature review (economic burden) were conducted to better understand the disease burden and unmet needs for patients with late-stage mCRPC, for whom optimal treatment options are unclear.

Methods

Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, the CENTRAL database (structured and systematic reviews), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database (systematic review only) were searched for English-language records from 2009 to 2021 to identify mCRPC treatment guidelines and studies related to the treatment landscape and the humanistic/economic burden of mCRPC in adult men (aged ≥18 years) of any ethnicity.

Results

In total, six records were included for the treatment patterns review, 14 records for humanistic burden, nine records for economic burden, three records (two studies) for efficacy, and eight records for safety. Real-world treatment patterns were broadly aligned with treatment guidelines and provided no optimal treatment sequencing beyond second line other than palliative care. Current post-docetaxel treatments in mCRPC are associated with adverse events that cause relatively high rates of treatment discontinuation or disruption. The humanistic and economic burdens associated with mCRPC are high.

Conclusion

The findings highlight a lack of treatment options with novel mechanisms of action and more tolerable safety profiles that satisfy a risk-to-benefit ratio aligned with patient needs and preferences for patients with late-stage mCRPC. Treatment approaches that improve survival and health-related quality of life are needed, ideally while simultaneously reducing costs and healthcare resource utilization.

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.

Abiraterone acetate versus docetaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a cohort study within the French Nationwide Claims Database

OBJECTIVES

To conduct the direct comparison of abiraterone acetate and docetaxel for first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in real-life settings.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the French nationwide claims database (SNDS) on all men aged ≥40 years starting first-line treatment with abiraterone acetate or docetaxel for mCRPC in 2014. A high-dimensional propensity score including 100 baseline characteristics was used to match patients of both groups and form two comparative cohorts. Three-year overall survival and treatment discontinuation-free survival were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

In 2014, 2,444 patients started abiraterone for treatment of mCRPC and 1,214 started docetaxel. After trimming and matching, 716 patients were available in each group. Median overall survival tended to be longer in the abiraterone acetate cohort (23.8 months, 95% confidence interval = [21.5; 26.0]) than in the docetaxel cohort (20.3 [18.4; 21.6] months). Survival at 36 months was 34.6% for abiraterone acetate and 27.9% for docetaxel (p = 0.0027). Treatment discontinuation-free median was longer in the abiraterone acetate cohort compared to the docetaxel cohort (10.8 [10.1; 11.7] versus 7.4 [7.0; 8.0] months).

CONCLUSION

The findings underline the interest of oral abiraterone acetate over intravenous docetaxel as the first-line treatment option in mCRPC.

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.

Prevalence of Fatigue in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Fatigue is a particularly common and troubling symptom that has a negative impact on quality of life throughout all phases of treatment and stages of the illness among patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this meta-analysis is to examine the present status of fatigue prevalence in patients with cancer.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, from inception up to February 2020. Prevalence rates were pooled with meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using I-squared (I²) statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 129 studies (N = 71,568) published between 1993 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. The overall prevalence of fatigue was 49% (34,947 of 71,656 participants, 95% CI = 45-53) with significant heterogeneity between studies (P < 0.000; τ² = 0.0000; I² = 98.88%). Subgroup analyses show that the prevalence of fatigue related to type of cancer ranged from 26.2% in patients with gynecological cancer to 56.3% in studies that included mixed types of cancer. In advanced cancer stage patients, the highest prevalence of fatigue (60.6%) was reported. Fatigue prevalence rates were 62% during treatment and 51% during mixed treatment status. The prevalence of fatigue decreased from 64% in studies published from 1996 to 2000 to 43% in studies published from 2016 to 2020. Metaregression identified female gender as a significant moderator for higher prevalence of fatigue, whereas mean age is not associated with fatigue.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis highlights the importance of developing optimal monitoring strategies to reduce fatigue and improve the quality of life of patients with cancer.

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.

Comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Two new drugs, abiraterone and enzalutamide, had recently shown beneficial effects on survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in real-world practice.

METHODS

A search from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase was conducted up to 6 March 2019. Available articles from conferences were searched. The endpoint was prostate-specific antigen response, overall survival, progression-free survival, number of patients with any adverse event.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohort studies involving 3469 participants were included. Pooled result showed that prostate-specific antigen response was higher for patients receiving enzalutamide than abiraterone (790 patients, odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.77, P = 0.003, I²=59%). Enzalutamide was significantly associated with increased adverse events rate in comparison with abiraterone (730 patients, OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.13-0.92, P = 0.03, I²=65%). There was no statistical difference between abiraterone and enzalutamide with respect to perceived cognitive impairments (1856 patients, OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.29-2.76, P = 0.85, I²=5%). Enzalutamide was significantly associated with increased fatigue risk in comparison with abiraterone (2477 patients, OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.34-0.63, P＜0.00001, I²=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that enzalutamide was more efficacious than abiraterone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, but was associated with a significantly elevated risk of side effects, particularly fatigue.

Patients' Perspective on Digital Technologies in Advanced Genitourinary Cancers

INTRODUCTION

Digital technologies allow for the remote monitoring of cancer patients and thereby close an important care gap. Despite a variety of upcoming digital health-tech solutions, there is little knowledge on uro-oncologic patients' perception of digital technologies in clinical care and cancer trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate patients' current use, preferences, and expectations of digital health technology. Patients receiving systemic treatment for urothelial, prostate, and renal-cell carcinoma were included during outpatient visits.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic renal-cell, urothelial, or prostate cancer were included in the final analysis. Internet, smartphone, and wearable user rates were significantly higher in younger patients (100% user rate in age group 40-49 years vs. 38% in age group 80-89 years). Patients were more likely to use wearables in clinical trials when they received the generated data (2.9/5) than when they did not (2.3/5, P < .0001). Interest in activity data (3.7/5) was higher than sleeping data (2.7/5, P < .0001), but desire for sleeping data increases with advancement of treatment lines (3.9, P = .008). Patients prefer a digital follow-up every 2.6 days; younger patients and those receiving advanced therapy lines prefer less frequent follow-up (respectively, every 3.3 days, P = .050, and every 4.0 days, P = .0001). Patients allow a maximum of an average of 2.2 minutes daily for digital follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We observed high engagement in digital technologies and interest in the data generated by digital devices. However, for the development of future health care applications, aspects such as patient age, gender, and therapy line need to be considered in uro-oncologic patients.