Androgen deprivation monotherapy usage in non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from eight European countries.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes towards use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as monotherapy for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey using a 28-item, structured, quantitative questionnaire about the management of patients with PC was conducted in eight European countries between February and May 2018. Survey recipients were selected from a private database of healthcare providers. RESULTS: Overall, 375 physicians completed the survey (response rate, 58%). Participants were urologists (71.2%) or medical oncologists (28.8%), with a mean practice duration of 19.9 years and with university hospital or cancer center (41.6%), non-teaching hospital (38.4%) or private-sector clinic (20.0%) affiliations. Median proportions of physicians considering ADT as monotherapy to treat patients with PC in different risk groups varied between countries, but overall were: high/very high-risk, 60%; intermediate-risk, 30%; low-risk, 7.5%. The use of ADT monotherapy in the different risk groups also varied by medical specialty and type of affiliation. Proportions of participants applying different target thresholds for testosterone (T) levels also varied by country, but overall were: <50 ng/dL, 29.9%; <32 ng/dL, 4.8%; <20 ng/dL, 54.3%; castration but no specific target, 11%. More than half of participants (58.7%) determined target T levels only when prostate-specific antigen level was increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our multinational survey provides evidence that PC management varies across European countries and with clinical context, and frequently diverges from European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) - European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines. Strategies for effective implementation of evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice may be needed to optimize patient outcomes.

Patient And Nurse Experience Of Using Somatostatin Analogues To Treat Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results Of The Somatostatin Treatment Experience Trial (STREET).

PURPOSE: Evaluate patients' and nurses' experiences, including injection problem frequency, with the somatostatin analogues (SSAs) lanreotide autogel® (Somatuline® autogel®, deep subcutaneous) and octreotide long-acting release (LAR) (Sandostatin® LAR®, intramuscular) when treating gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study across 2 NET centers in Sweden. Questionnaires based on participants' most recent injection experience were sent to patients with GEP-NETs treated with octreotide or lanreotide, and to nurses administering these treatments. Nurses were identified via patients completing their questionnaires. Resource use was sourced from Swedish prescription registry records. The planned sample size was 200, based on an estimated proportion of 0.50 and ±7% precision. RESULTS: 119/156 patients (n=53, lanreotide; n=66, octreotide) and 43/53 nurses (n=22, lanreotide; n=21, octreotide) completed questionnaires. Despite smaller recruitment than planned, the endpoint precision was ±9% with 119 participants, and still considered reasonable. More octreotide-treated patients reported problems (18% vs none; P=0.001) and experienced moderate-to-high anxiety pre-injection (11% vs 2%). Patients had similar physical HRQoL scores overall (Short Form-12 mean composite scores: physical: 39.4 vs 37.6; mental: 50.7 vs 49.6). The mean number of lanreotide and octreotide doses dispensed per year were 11.1 and 12.6, respectively (P<0.05). In the lanreotide group, 28% self-injected, while 29% were not aware they could self-inject. In the octreotide group, 3% self-injected and 73% were unaware of the availability of an SSA for self-injection. Most patients (61%) felt well-informed about their disease and treatment. Nurses were generally experienced and felt confident and well-informed about giving SSA injections; however, only 12% felt well-informed about the disease and treatment. CONCLUSION: Those treated with lanreotide reported fewer injection problems and experienced less pre-injection anxiety than those treated with octreotide. SSA choice did not appear to affect patients' HRQoL. Some patients treated with octreotide were unaware of an SSA with the flexibility of self-injection.

Botulinum toxin treatment of spasticity targeted to muscle endplates: an international, randomised, evaluator-blinded study comparing two different botulinum toxin injection strategies for the treatment of upper limb spasticity.

OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic effects of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) are well documented in upper limb spasticity. However, several factors may influence treatment efficacy, including targeting of neuromuscular junctions (NMJs). We examined whether NMJ-targeted BoNT injections were non-inferior, in terms of efficacy, to current injection practices. DESIGN: Open-label prospective evaluator-blinded study. SETTING: Conducted across 20 medical centres in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (24 September 2012 to 11 March 2015). PARTICIPANTS: Aged ˃18 years with upper limb spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale [MAS] score of 2 or 3) following stroke or traumatic brain injury, had received ≥2 consecutive BoNT-A treatment cycles (the latest of which was abobotulinumtoxinA [aboBoNT-A]) and needed BoNT-A retreatment (same modality as previous cycle). Patients requiring aboBoNT-A doses >800units were excluded. In total, 88 patients were randomised (intention-to-treat [ITT] population), most were male (n=58/88, 65.9%) and 54/88 (61.4%) completed the study (per protocol [PP] population). INTERVENTIONS: Randomisation (1:1) to receive a single dose of aboBoNT-A (≤800 U) according to either current clinical practice (300 U/mL) or as an NMJ-targeted injection (100 U/mL). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of patients with a ≥1 level reduction from baseline in MAS score at week 4 post-injection (responders). RESULTS: In the ITT population, the proportion of responders at elbow flexors was 72.7% in the current practice group and 56.8% in the NMJ-targeted group (adjusted difference -0.1673 [95% CIs: -0.3630 to 0.0284]; p=0.0986). Similar results were observed in the PP population (69.0% vs 68.0%, respectively, adjusted difference 0.0707 [-0.1948 to 0.3362]; p=0.6052). CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the limited number of participants, non-inferiority of NMJ-targeted injections could not be determined. However, there was no statistical difference between groups. Larger studies are needed confirm whether the two techniques offer comparable efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01682148.