The patient's choice of androgen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer: bicalutamide, a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue or orchidectomy

Patient preference on once-daily oral versus injectable androgen deprivation therapy for Asian patients with advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The study aimed at investigating prostate cancer patients' choice of androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) and possible factors that would affect their preferences of ADT.

METHODS

This was a single-centre cross-sectional study investigating the usage and preferences of ADT. Consecutives prostate cancer patients who were receiving injectable luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist or antagonist were recruited from the prostate cancer clinic in a tertiary academic hospital. Patients who received bilateral orchidectomy or those who could not consent to the study were excluded. Disease characteristics, treatment information and patient background were documented. The survey collected information related to their change in ADT regimen, preferences on drug usage (routes and frequency of administration) and their reasons. A hypothetical set of three drug formularies was designed. Questions regarding patient preference and the contributing reasons raised in the format of questionnaire.

RESULTS

100 patients completed the survey. Most patients started with more frequent injections (3-monthly, 54%; 1-monthly, 38%) and switched to 6-monthly injections (89%) at the time of the survey. Primary reasons for the change were healthcare opinion (72%) and less frequent treatment (51%). Three options of ADT (oral daily, 1-monthly and 6-monthly injection) with the same efficacies and side effect profile were offered: 61% preferred 6-monthly injection, 1% preferred 1-monthly injection and 38% preferred oral regimen. When patients were informed of lower cardiovascular side effects in 1-monthly injection or daily oral drug, patients' preference was 56% (6-monthly), 6% (1-monthly), and 39% (oral). Patients with polypharmacy (more than 5 regular medications) were more inclined to choose injections (p = 0.025). Patient age, educational background, employment status, marriage status and disease status were not found to be statistically significant contributing factors to patient preference.

CONCLUSION

6-monthly ADT injection was the preferred ADT despite greater cardiovascular risks. Among 1-monthly or daily oral LHRH antagonist, more patients prefer oral option. Convenience factor was highly valued.

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Metastatic Prostate Cancer with Highest Reported PSA Level

Introduction: Prostate cancer is the sixth most common cancer in the world, the second most common cancer among men, and the most common cancer in men in Europe. Metastatic prostate cancer among young patients represents the rarest of the newly diagnosed prostate cancer, with few reports of cases with a longer survival.

Case presentation: We present the case of a 59 year-old male who was referred with back pain over the last month. Digital rectal examination highlighted an enlarged and totally indurated prostate of 4x4.5 cm, while abdominopelvic X-rays showed osteoblastic metastases in the spine and pelvis bones. Laboratory examinations revealed a Prostate Specific Antigen level of 7941 ng/ml. Prostate biopsy histology showed a bilateral prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 8. Androgen deprivation therapy and daily administration of biphosphonates were prescribed. After two years of treatment, the Prostate Specific Antigen level decreases to 8 ng/ml.

Conclusions: We reported the highest Prostate Specific Antigen level in a patient under 60 years old with metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate cancer remains an important public health problem due to the aggressiveness of the disease and advanced stage upon diagnosis. Prostate Specific Antigen is mandatory to evaluate, to have a reference level in order to prevent metastatic prostate cancer in young patients at diagnosis.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Enzalutamide Monotherapy in Hormone-naïve Prostate Cancer: 1- and 2-Year Open-label Follow-up Results

BACKGROUND

Enzalutamide is an androgen receptor inhibitor with a demonstrated overall survival benefit in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. A phase 2 study of enzalutamide monotherapy in patients with hormone-naïve prostate cancer (HNPC) showed a high response rate for the prespecified primary endpoint (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] response at week 25), regardless of metastases at baseline, and favorable tolerability.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy at 1 and 2 yr.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Open-label, single-arm study in patients with HNPC and noncastrate testosterone (≥230 ng/dl).

INTERVENTION

Oral enzalutamide 160mg/d until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

PSA response (≥80% decline from baseline) assessed at 1 yr (49 wk) and 2 yr (97 wk).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The median (range) age was 73 (48-86) yr and 26 patients (39%) presented with metastases at study entry. Of 67 patients enrolled, 45 (67%) remained on enzalutamide at week 97. For patients remaining on therapy, the PSA response rate at week 97 was 100% (95% confidence interval 92-100%). Of 26 patients with metastases at baseline, 13 (50%) had a complete and four (15.4%) had a partial response as best overall tumor response up to 97 wk on treatment. There was overall maintenance of total-body bone mineral density (BMD) and moderate changes in lean and fat body mass at 49 and 97 wk. The most common adverse events were gynecomastia, nipple pain, fatigue, and hot flushes. The study limitations include lack of a control group and of endocrine, glycemic, and lipid data at 97 wk.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term enzalutamide monotherapy in men with noncastrate HNPC is associated with large sustained reductions in PSA, signals indicating a favorable tumor response, and favorable safety/tolerability profile, with relatively small negative effects on total-body BMD.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this long-term follow-up of the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy in patients with hormone-naïve prostate cancer, enzalutamide maintained long-term reductions in prostate-specific antigen, with a minimal impact on total-body bone mineral density.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01302041.

Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.

Optimal pharmacotherapeutic management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer

The mainstay of initial therapy of metastatic prostate cancer has not changed since 1941 when Huggins and Hodges described the efficacy of castration. The benefit of combining an androgen receptor blocker with medical castration has been debatable despite several large randomized trials and meta-analyses intended to answer the question. Recent phase III trial data with continuous versus intermittent androgen deprivation in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer have established continuous therapy as the preferred approach at the present time. Novel and more potent inhibitors of androgen signaling have been developed in the past 5 years and have been validated in castration-resistant disease. Their role in management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer is under evaluation in ongoing studies. As androgen deprivation therapy carries significant long-term toxicities including fatigue and loss of bone and muscle mass, an important element of clinical management is prevention and amelioration of these toxicities.

Men's and carers' experiences of care for prostate cancer: a narrative literature review

OBJECTIVE

To review studies of patients' and carers' experience of prostate cancer care.

DESIGN

Narrative literature review.

METHODS

Search strategies were developed for the following databases: MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006) and PsycINFO (1987-2006). A search of SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) was also undertaken. Experience was defined as patients' and carers' reports of how care was organized and delivered to meet their needs. A narrative summary of the included papers was undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 90 relevant studies were identified. Most studies reported on experiences of screening, diagnosis, the treatment decision, treatment and post-initial treatment. Few studies reported on experiences of the stages of referral, testing, and further treatment and palliative care, and no studies reported on monitoring or terminal care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some phases of care have not been investigated in detail, there is evidence that: (i) many patients have a low level of knowledge of prostate cancer; (ii) patients with prostate cancer and their carers need information throughout the care pathway to enable them to understand the diagnosis, treatment options, self-care and support available; and (iii) increasing patient knowledge and understanding of prostate cancer (e.g. through interventions) are often associated with a more active role in decision making (e.g. screening, treatment decision).

Dietary feeding of dibenzoylmethane inhibits prostate cancer in transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate model

Dibenzoylmethane (DBM), a minor beta-diketone constituent of licorice, has been shown to exhibit antineoplastic effects in prostate cancer cell lines by induction of cell cycle arrest and regulation of androgen receptor expression. In the present study, we investigated the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of DBM using TRAMP-C1 cell lines and TRAMP mice. DBM was found to arrest TRAMP-C1 cells at G(2)-M phase of cell cycle and suppressed phosphorylated retinoblastoma, cyclin D1, and cyclin A. Importantly, DBM was found to be equally effective in suppression of prostate tumor progression in TRAMP mice. At 8 or 12 weeks of age, mice were fed control or 1% DBM-supplemented diets until 24 weeks of age. Our results show that DBM-fed groups had a lower incidence of palpable tumor and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Subsequent mechanistic studies show that the expression of phosphorylated retinoblastoma, c-myc, cyclin D1, cyclin A, phosphorylated Akt, phosphorylated PDK-1, and phosphorylated S6 was significantly reduced by DBM. Our findings suggest that DBM blocks the growth and progression of prostate cancer in TRAMP mice via modulation of tumor cell cycle regulation and therefore merits its consideration for future clinical intervention of human prostate cancer.

Etude randomisée multicentrique comparant la castration médicale par triptoréline à la castration chirurgicale dans le traitement du cancer de la prostate localement avancé ou métastatique

OBJECTIVE

To report the results of a trial comparing the efficacy of triptorelin and surgical castration in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

80 patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer prostate cancer were included in a one-year multicentre, randomized, prospective, open-label therapeutic trial. Patients either received a monthly injection of triptorelin (group 1; n = 40), or were treated by pulpectomy (group 2; n = 40). Patients were reviewed every 3 months, then every 6 months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 71.22 +/- 8.25 years. At 1 month, 38 patients were castrated (plasma testosterone < 0.5 mg/ml) in the pulpectomy group versus 35 in the triptorelin group. The mean follow-up was 38.8 +/- 26 months in the triptorelin group and 36.3 +/- 25 months in the pulpectomy group. On multivariate analysis, age, impaired performance status and PAP level (> 3.2 ng/ml) were predictive factors of a poor outcome. The median survival was 37.5 +/- 9 months in the triptorelin group and 33 +/- 3 months in the pulpectomy group. At 3 years, no significant difference in specific survival was observed between the 2 groups. At 8 years of follow-up, 63 patients had died.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates an equivalent specific survival between patients treated by triptorelin or surgical castration. Castration is rapidly obtained with triptorelin (< 2 months) and is maintained over time throughout the duration of treatment.