Thierry Lebret1, Jean-Louis Davin2, Christophe Hennequin3, Igor Latorzeff4, Jean-Pierre Mignard5, Jean-Luc Moreau6, Dominique Rossi7, Alain Ruffion8, Marc Zerbib9, Stéphane Culine3. 1. Hôpital Foch, service d'urologie, Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 40, rue Worth, BP 36, 92151 Suresnes cedex, France. 2. Clinique Rhône-Durance, Avignon, France. 3. Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France. 4. Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France. 5. Centre Hospitalier Privé, Saint-Brieuc, France. 6. Centre d'Urologie, Nancy, France. 7. Hôpital Nord, Marseille, France. 8. Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Benite, France. 9. Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To define the profile of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) receiving a 3-month or 6-month formulation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist in France and the reasons for choosing between formulations. METHODS: This prospective 1-year observational study included patients with PCa starting LHRH agonist therapy in everyday practice. Reasons for prescription and patient preference were recorded at inclusion, 3 or 6 months, and 12 months. The percentage of patients with a renewed initial prescription was recorded during follow up. RESULTS: A total of 1438 patients with PCa were included. Hormonotherapy was initiated more frequently with a 6-month (n = 903; 62.8%) than with a 3-month formulation (n = 535; 37.2%). The initial prescription was renewed in most patients after 3 or 6 months (86.1%) and 12 months (71%); 170 patients switched from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. Presence of metastases influenced initial prescription (odds ratio 0.439; 95% confidence interval 1.095-1.892), with a 3-month formulation more often prescribed than a 6-month formulation to men with metastatic PCa at diagnosis (21.3% versus 15.8%, respectively). The most frequent reasons given by physicians for choosing the 6-month formulation were 'simplification of therapeutic regimen' (86.9%) or 'fewer unnecessary visits' (46.8%). Similar reasons were given for switching from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. The most frequent reasons given by physicians to initiate therapy with a 3-month formulation were 'usual practice/habit' (55.5%) or 'closer patient management' (46.2%). 'Closer patient management' and 'reassuring effect upon patient' were the main reasons for switching from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation during follow up. Approximately 80% of patients were satisfied with the formulation they were prescribed and patients' reasons for preferring one formulation over another were similar to the physicians' reasons for prescribing these formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Slow-release formulations of LHRH agonists are useful therapies for physicians treating patients with PCa and there may be a preference for the 6-month formulation.
OBJECTIVES: To define the profile of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) receiving a 3-month or 6-month formulation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist in France and the reasons for choosing between formulations. METHODS: This prospective 1-year observational study included patients with PCa starting LHRH agonist therapy in everyday practice. Reasons for prescription and patient preference were recorded at inclusion, 3 or 6 months, and 12 months. The percentage of patients with a renewed initial prescription was recorded during follow up. RESULTS: A total of 1438 patients with PCa were included. Hormonotherapy was initiated more frequently with a 6-month (n = 903; 62.8%) than with a 3-month formulation (n = 535; 37.2%). The initial prescription was renewed in most patients after 3 or 6 months (86.1%) and 12 months (71%); 170 patients switched from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. Presence of metastases influenced initial prescription (odds ratio 0.439; 95% confidence interval 1.095-1.892), with a 3-month formulation more often prescribed than a 6-month formulation to men with metastatic PCa at diagnosis (21.3% versus 15.8%, respectively). The most frequent reasons given by physicians for choosing the 6-month formulation were 'simplification of therapeutic regimen' (86.9%) or 'fewer unnecessary visits' (46.8%). Similar reasons were given for switching from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. The most frequent reasons given by physicians to initiate therapy with a 3-month formulation were 'usual practice/habit' (55.5%) or 'closer patient management' (46.2%). 'Closer patient management' and 'reassuring effect upon patient' were the main reasons for switching from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation during follow up. Approximately 80% of patients were satisfied with the formulation they were prescribed and patients' reasons for preferring one formulation over another were similar to the physicians' reasons for prescribing these formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Slow-release formulations of LHRH agonists are useful therapies for physicians treating patients with PCa and there may be a preference for the 6-month formulation.
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Youjin Je; Fabio A B Schutz; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu; Arti Parekh; Joshua A Beckman; Toni K Choueiri Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Seidenfeld; D J Samson; V Hasselblad; N Aronson; P C Albertsen; C L Bennett; T J Wilt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2000-04-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Glenn N Levine; Anthony V D'Amico; Peter Berger; Peter E Clark; Robert H Eckel; Nancy L Keating; Richard V Milani; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Matthew R Smith; Neil Zakai Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Patrick J Bastian; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Theodor van der Kwast; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Thomas Wiegel; Filiberto Zattoni; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 20.096