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

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
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":8.3000,"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.
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。
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 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信