Selection criteria for initiation and renewal of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a French prospective observational study.

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.

Quality of life of 1276 elderly patients with prostate cancer, starting treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist: results of a French observational study.

This French observational, longitudinal, prospective study described the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of elderly men (≥75 years old) with prostate cancer after initiating gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy. At baseline and 3-6 months after baseline, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate-specific (QLQ-PR25) questionnaires were completed by patients. Data from 1276 patients were analyzed. At baseline, mean (±SD) age was 80 (±4.1) years, 29.1% of patients had Gleason scores ≥8 and 24.9% had metastases. At baseline, increasing age, presence of metastasis and presence of comorbidity had a negative impact on QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores. At follow-up, improvement in emotional-functioning (2.8; p < 0.001), social-functioning (1.7; p = 0.011), global HRQoL (1.6; p = 0.029), sleep-disturbance (-2.1; p = 0.011), appetite-loss (-4.0; p < 0.001) and pain (-4.1; p < 0.001) QLQ-C30 scores were observed. In addition, there was a worsening in treatment-related symptom (8.6; p < 0.001), sexual-activity (-5.5; p < 0.001) and sexual-functioning (-22.6; p < 0.001) QLQ-PR25 scores, and an improvement in urinary symptoms (-3.7; p < 0.001) and incontinence aid (-2.9; p = 0.023) QLQ-PR25 scores. This study shows that, apart from the expected impact on sexual functioning domains, HRQoL is not adversely affected by 3-6 months of GnRH agonist therapy in older men with prostate cancer.

High-intensity focused ultrasound in prostate cancer; a systematic literature review of the French Association of Urology.

We discuss the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with prostate cancer, to define the best indications for HIFU in daily clinical practice as primary therapy. We searched Medline and Embase for clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of HIFU in prostate cancer (July 2007), and abstracts presented at the 2005-2007 annual meetings of the European Association of Urology and American Urological Association were screened. In all, 37 articles/abstracts were selected. As the data on HIFU as salvage therapy were limited, we focused on HIFU as primary therapy. Studies consisted of case series only. Included patients were approximately 70 years old with T1-T2 N0M0 disease, Gleason Score or=70 years) with T1-T2 N0M0 disease, a Gleason score of <7, a PSA level of <15 ng/mL and a prostate volume of <40 mL. In these patients HIFU achieves short-term cancer control, as shown by a high percentage of negative biopsies and significantly reduced PSA levels. The median-term survival data also seem promising, but long-term follow-up studies are needed to further evaluate cancer-specific and overall survival rates before the indications for primary therapy can be expanded.

[The prostate: how to treat this symbol of male vulnerability? An Association Française d'Urologie (AFU)-IPSOS qualitative survey]. / La prostate: identification des attentes du médecin généraliste. Une enquête qualitative. Association Française d'Urologie (AFU)-IPSOS.

INTRODUCTION: Information on prostate diseases, including prostate cancer, has been promoted by the Association Française d'Urologie (AFU) for several years, but is developing slowly in France. In 2005, a first communication was targeted to the male public and identified the reasons for the fatalistic attitude of men, and paradoxically, why the prostate incarnates the vulnerability of their sexual capital. As part of a second phase, this article presents the results of a complementary study conducted among general practitioners to identify their expectations and the most appropriate levers to promote screening. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The Ipsos survey company developed a Krisis qualitative protocol in October 2005 (after the first French prostate day on 15 September 2005). Three groups of general practitioners were defined: doctors who are very active in terms of screening, doctors who are uncomfortable with this problem and doctors who systematically refer their patients to urologists. RESULTS: The management of prostate diseases often highlights the ageing process for the patient. The ability to discuss these problems during the consultation depended on the doctor's degree of comfort with this subject, which is related to his/her training and relationships with urologists. To initiate the question of screening, general practitioners involved in this process asked simple questions about everyday practices without being afraid of making jokes or basing their approach on mediatization of the disease. Digital rectal examination is one of the important clinical elements but is not always easy to perform. PSA was found to be an examination that is not always appropriate, characterized by a lack of information on the conditions for ordering this test, its usefulness and its relevance for screening. Ultrasound could be a way of alerting the patient without dramatizing the situation, letting the urologist perform digital rectal examination. Female general practitioners preferred PSA and ultrasound. The doctors surveyed relied on mediatization of prostate diseases, a high level of interactivity with urologists and documents and brochures to be placed in waiting rooms to relay screening messages. CONCLUSION: General practitioners need their authorities, specialists and public health institutions to develop and mediatize andrology in the same way as gynaecology. Urologists play a major supportive role by means of conferences, postgraduate training or AFU invitations.