A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prostate cancer
16
patient preference
12
preference apalutamide
12
apalutamide versus
12
versus enzalutamide
12
recurrent metastatic
12
factors influencing
12
patients low-volume
12
critical factor
12
factor influencing
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!