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

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY European urology oncology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.001
Chi-Fai Ng , Chi-Hang Yee , Peter Ka-Fung Chiu , Kenneth Wong , Daisy Lam , Violet Wai-Fan Yuen , Pui-Tak Lai , Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
{"title":"Patient Preference of Apalutamide Versus Enzalutamide for Recurrent or Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Open-label, Randomized, Crossover Trial","authors":"Chi-Fai Ng ,&nbsp;Chi-Hang Yee ,&nbsp;Peter Ka-Fung Chiu ,&nbsp;Kenneth Wong ,&nbsp;Daisy Lam ,&nbsp;Violet Wai-Fan Yuen ,&nbsp;Pui-Tak Lai ,&nbsp;Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>A total of 74 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to the A → E or E → A arm. Of these, 66 patients (89.1%; 32 A → E, 34 E → 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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1420-1430"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588931124000907","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 → E or E → A arm. Of these, 66 patients (89.1%; 32 A → E, 34 E → 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿帕鲁胺与恩扎鲁胺治疗复发性或转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌的患者偏好:一项开放标签、随机、交叉试验。
背景与目的阿帕鲁胺与恩杂鲁胺在前列腺癌(PCa)中的治疗偏好以及影响决策的因素在很大程度上是未知的。我们的目的是调查前列腺癌患者及其医生和护理人员对阿帕鲁胺和恩杂鲁胺的偏好,以及影响他们决定的因素。方法前瞻性、开放标签、随机、交叉试验。局部PCa复发或转移性疾病不被认为是高风险或高容量,并继续雄激素剥夺治疗的患者被招募。所有受试者接受阿帕鲁胺(a)和恩杂鲁胺(E)两种药物的试验,各12周,中间有5周的洗脱期。药物的顺序是随机的。主要结果是在研究结束时评估患者对其中一种药物的偏好。其他结果包括影响患者偏好的因素、副作用概况的比较和患者的生活质量(QoL)。医生和护理人员对药物的偏好和影响他们选择的因素也进行了评估。主要发现和局限性共有74例患者符合入选标准,随机分为A→E或E→A组。其中66例(89.1%);32名A→E, 34名E→A)完成了研究。两组患者的基线特征具有可比性,约90%的患者患有小体积转移性疾病。两种治疗各完成12周后,A比E的偏好差异为17.8%,医生(18.2%)和护理人员(22.4%)对A比E的偏好趋势相似。副作用少是影响患者选择的最关键因素。在副作用中,疲劳减轻是A比E最常被报道的好处。两种药物的生活质量无显著差异。然而,该研究因中期分析而终止,结果可能不具有结论性。结论:在以小体积复发或转移性前列腺癌为主的患者及其医生和护理人员中,a比E更受青睐。较少的副作用是影响他们选择的最关键因素。小体积复发或转移性前列腺癌患者倾向于使用阿帕鲁胺而不是恩杂鲁胺治疗。副作用是影响治疗偏好的最关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
128
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Journal Name: European Urology Oncology Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology Focus: First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies Aims to deliver high-quality research Content: Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews Covers clinical, basic, and translational research Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format
期刊最新文献
Re: Michele Nicolazzini, Matteo Berra, Paolo De Angelis, et al. New TNM Staging System Predicts Progression of Small Renal Masses Under Active Surveillance: A Retrospective Analysis of a Single-center Prospective Series. Eur Urol Oncol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.09.013. Higher Preoperative Maximum Standardised Uptake Values Are Associated with a Higher Risk of Metastases After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Patients Undergoing 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-DCFPyL Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography. Predictive Value of Prior Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer for the Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Localized Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Real-world Analysis of the BLADRAC Cohort. Docetaxel with Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy in High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: An ICECaP Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Deintensified Surveillance Protocol for Low-risk Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Prospective Study in 250 Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1