Patient Preference of Apalutamide Versus Enzalutamide for Recurrent or Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Open-label, Randomized, Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Treatment preference regarding apalutamide versus enzalutamide in prostate cancer (PCa) and the factors influencing decisions are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the preference for apalutamide versus enzalutamide among prostate cancer patients and their physicians and caregivers, and factors influencing their decision. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Patients with recurrence of localized PCa or with metastatic disease not considered as high-risk or high-volume and on continued androgen deprivation therapy were recruited. All subjects received a trial of two agents, apalutamide (A) and enzalutamide (E), for 12 wk each, with a 5-wk washout period in between. The sequencing of the drugs was randomized. The primary outcome was patient preference for one the drugs, assessed at the end of the study. Other outcomes included factors influencing patient preference, a comparison of side-effect profiles, and patients' quality of life (QoL). Physician and caregiver preferences for the drugs and factors affecting their choice were also assessed. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 74 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to the A â†’ E or E â†’ A arm. Of these, 66 patients (89.1%; 32 A â†’ E, 34 E â†’ A) completed the study. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, and ∼90% of the patients had low-volume metastatic disease. After completion of both treatments for 12 wk each, the difference in preference for A over E was 17.8%, with similar trends for preference of A over E among physicians (18.2%) and caregivers (22.4%). Fewer side effect was the most critical factor influencing the preference of patients. Among the side effects, less fatigue was the benefit of A over E most frequently reported. No notable difference in QoL was observed between the two drugs. However, the study was terminated on interim analysis and the results might not be conclusive. CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend for preference of A over E among patients with predominantly low-volume recurrent or metastatic PCa and their physicians and caregivers. Fewer side effects was the most critical factor influencing their choice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with low-volume recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer tended to prefer treatment with apalutamide over enzalutamide. Side effects were the most critical factor influencing treatment preference.

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.

Hemopatch to Prevent Lymphatic Leak after Robotic Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study investigates whether the application of Hemopatch, a novel hemostatic patch, could prevent lymphatic leak after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (BPLND). This is a prospective, single-center, phase III randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of Hemopatch in preventing lymphatic leak after RARP and BPLND. Participants were randomized to receive RARP and BPLND, with or without the use of Hemopatch, with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the total drain output volume. The secondary outcomes include blood loss, operative time, lymph node yield, duration of drainage, drain output per day, hospital stay, transfusion and 30-day complications. A total of 32 patients were recruited in the study. The Hemopatch group had a significantly lower median total drain output than the control group (35 mL vs. 180 mL, p = 0.022) and a significantly lower drain output volume per day compared to the control group (35 mL/day vs. 89 mL/day, p = 0.038). There was no significant difference in the other secondary outcomes. In conclusion, the application of Hemopatch in RARP and BPLND could reduce the total drain output volume and the drain output volume per day. The use of Hemopatch should be considered to prevent lymphatic leakage after RARP and BPLND.