The treatment patterns of castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan, including symptomatic skeletal events and associated treatment and healthcare resource use.

BACKGROUND: Real-world treatment patterns of bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in Japan were examined, focusing on treatment patterns and resource use differences attributed to symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). METHODS: Urologists (N = 176) provided retrospective chart data for patients with mCRPC (N = 445) via online surveys. Descriptive analyses and chi-square tests evaluated treatment patterns and their differences by SSE presence; generalized linear mixed models examined healthcare resource utilization differences as a function of SSEs. RESULTS: Patients were on average 73.6 years old (SD = 8.3), diagnosed with prostate cancer 5.1 years (SD = 6.2), castration-resistant 2.3 years (SD=2.0), and had 7.9 bone metastases sites (SD=12.4). Novel anti-hormones showed increased adoption as mCRPC treatment. Simultaneously, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist/antagonist use was common (43.6% of patients in 1st line), even as CRPC treatment had started. SSEs were uncommon (2-3% per treatment line; 5% at any time), but were associated with increased opioids, strontium-89, bisphosphonates, and NSAIDs use, plus increased healthcare visits (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: LHRH agonist/antagonist treatment combinations remain the mCRPC treatment mainstay in Japan. However, novel anti-hormone therapies are becoming well-accepted in practice. SSEs were associated with increased healthcare resource and analgesic use, highlighting the need for efficient symptom management.

Patient preferences for treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan: a discrete-choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Up to a fifth of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), which has been associated with a poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to consider the patient perspective as part of the overall treatment decision-making process for CRPC, given that an alignment between patient preference and prescribing has been shown to benefit patient outcomes. This study examines preferences of patients with CRPC in Japan for treatment features associated with treatments like RA-223, abiraterone, and docetaxel and to examine the extent to which treatment preferences may vary between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A two-phase research approach was implemented. In Phase 1, N = 8 patients with CRPC were recruited from a single hospital to complete a qualitative interview to provide feedback on the draft survey. In Phase 2, N = 134 patients with CRPC were recruited from five hospitals to complete a paper survey. The survey included 6 treatment choice questions, each asking patients to choose between two hypothetical treatments for their CRPC. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: length of overall survival (OS), time to a symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), method of administration, reduction in the risk of bone pain, treatment-associated risk of fatigue and lost work days. A hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute level and mean relative importance. RESULTS: A total of N = 133 patients with CRPC completed the survey and were included in the final analysis. Patients had a mean age of 75.4 years (SD = 7.4) and had been diagnosed with PC a mean of 6.5 years prior (SD = 4.4). Over the attribute levels shown, fatigue (relative importance [RI] = 24.9 %, 95 % CI: 24.7 %, 25.1 %) was the most important attribute, followed by reduction in the risk of bone pain (RI = 23.2 %, 95 % CI: 23.0 %, 23.5 %), and OS (RI = 19.2 %, 95 % CI: 19.0 %, 19.4 %). Although symptomatic patients placed significantly more importance on delaying an SSE (p < .05), no other preference differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CRPC patients were more concerned about reduced quality of life from side effects of treatment rather than extension of survival, which may have implications for shared decision-making between patients and physicians.

Ethnic comparison of pharmacokinetics of (18)F-florbetaben, a PET tracer for beta-amyloid imaging, in healthy Caucasian and Japanese subjects.

PURPOSE: (18)F-Florbetaben is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer indicated for imaging cerebral beta-amyloid deposition in adult patients with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer's disease and other causes of cognitive decline. The present study examined ethnic comparability of the plasma pharmacokinetics, which is the input to the brain, between Caucasian and Japanese subjects. METHODS: Two identical phase I trials were performed in 18 German and 18 Japanese healthy volunteers to evaluate the plasma pharmacokinetics of a single dose of 300 MBq (18)F-florbetaben, either of low (≤5 µg, LD) or high (50-55 µg, HD) mass dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated based on the total (18)F radioactivity measurements in plasma followed by metabolite analysis using radio-HPLC. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of (18)F-florbetaben was characterized by a rapid elimination from plasma. The dose-normalized areas under the curve of (18)F-florbetaben in plasma as an indicator of the input to the brain were comparable between Germans (LD: 0.38 min/l, HD: 0.55 min/l) and Japanese (LD: 0.35 min/l, HD: 0.45 min/l) suggesting ethnic similarity, and the mass dose effect was minimal. A polar metabolite fraction was the main radiolabelled degradation product in plasma and was also similar between the doses and the ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Absence of a difference in the pharmacokinetics of (18)F-florbetaben in Germans and Japanese has warranted further global development of the PET imaging agent.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blind comparison phase III study to determine the efficacy and safety of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadopentetate dimeglumine following single injection in patients referred for contrast-enhanced MRI of the body regions or extremities.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the noninferiority of gadobutrol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in Asian patients referred for contrast-enhanced imaging of the body or extremities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter, parallel-group comparison study of Asian adults referred for contrast-enhanced MRI were randomized (1:1) to either gadobutrol or gadopentetate dimeglumine. Lesions were assessed for three primary visualization variables: degree of contrast enhancement, border delineation, and internal morphology. Secondary efficacy variables included number of lesions detected, match of MRI diagnosis with final clinical diagnosis, and sensitivity and specificity for malignant lesion detection. Safety was monitored for 24 ± 4 hours after contrast agent administration. RESULTS: A total of 363 patients received either gadobutrol (n = 168) or gadopentetate dimeglumine (n = 178). Mean total scores for three primary visualization variables were 9.39 and 9.34 for gadobutrol and gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively. The proportion of patients with matched MRI and final diagnosis and sensitivity for malignant lesion detection was greater for unenhanced versus combined images (gadobutrol: 72.2% vs. 81.7%; gadopentetate dimeglumine: 76.2% vs. 82.2%, respectively). Both contrast agents were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Gadobutrol (0.1 mmol/kg BW) was well tolerated and effective in Asian patients referred for contrast-enhanced MRI of the body or extremities.

Magnetic resonance evaluation of brain metastases from systemic malignances with two doses of gadobutrol 1.0 m compared with gadoteridol: a multicenter, phase ii/iii study in patients with known or suspected brain metastases.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of gadobutrol 1.0 M (0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg body weight [BW]), compared with gadoteridol 0.5 M (0.2 mmol/kg BW), in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) of brain metastases in patients with known or suspected brain metastases from systemic malignancies. The study also compared the usefulness of gadobutrol in treatment planning for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a Phase II/III, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover, intraindividual comparison study. Each patient underwent one MRI study examination with gadobutrol and the other with gadoteridol, each at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg BW, administered twice, for a total dose of 0.2 mmol/kg BW. Image acquisition was carried out after the first and second doses of gadobutrol, but only after the second dose of gadoteridol. Contrast agents were assigned in a randomized order and their administration separated by an interval of 1 to 14 days. Images were evaluated through blinded readings by 3 independent experienced radiologists. Treatment planning for SRS was assessed in a blinded manner, as a consensus between a diagnostic neuroradiologist and a radiation oncologist, in addition to the clinical investigator's assessment. The safety and tolerability of gadobutrol and gadoteridol were evaluated in all patients who received the study drugs. The primary efficacy variable was the number of lesions detected in CE-MRI images; the secondary efficacy variables were the degree of contrast enhancement and border delineation of lesions, and experts' confidence in treatment planning for SRS. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were enrolled and randomized, with 164 (93.7%) included in the safety analysis set, and 151 (86.2%) evaluable in the efficacy analysis. The mean number of detected lesions per patient using the average of the 3 blinded readers was 6.28, 6.92, and 6.87 for gadobutrol 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg BW, and gadoteridol 0.2 mmol/kg BW, respectively. Noninferiority of gadobutrol (both doses) to gadoteridol 0.2 mmol/kg BW was demonstrated. The degree of contrast enhancement and the border delineation of each lesion were categorized as "good" or "excellent" for most lesions for both agents. Almost all enhanced images were rated as "confident" in treatment planning for SRS. Sixty-five (43%) and 62 (41%) patients in the gadobutrol 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg BW groups, respectively, were selected as eligible for SRS treatment. The percentage of images assessed as "gadobutrol was better than gadoteridol" was higher than that assessed as "gadoteridol was better than gadobutrol" for both doses of gadobutrol. Eight adverse events were reported as being related to the study drug in 7 patients (4.3%) in each group. CONCLUSION: In this study, a single dose of gadobutrol was shown to be noninferior to a double dose of gadoteridol at detecting brain metastases, and could be effectively used for treatment planning in patients eligible for SRS. A dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg BW is recommended as the clinical dose for the detection of brain metastases.