0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patients’ Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background. For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC), adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has shown efficacy, but men are often reluctant to accept it because of its impact on quality of life. Methods. We conducted time tradeoffs (score of 1 = perfect health and 0 = death) and probability tradeoffs with patients aged 51 to 78 y who had received EBRT for IRPC within the past 2 y. Of 40 patients, 20 had received 6 mo of ADT and 20 had declined. Utility assessments explored 4 ADT-related side effects: hot flashes, fatigue, loss of libido/erectile dysfunction, and weight gain. Results. The most commonly reported “worst” treatment-related complication of ADT was fatigue (50% in both cohorts) followed by reduced libido/erectile dysfunction (40% in both cohorts). The utilities for fatigue were mean = 0.71 and median = 0.92 and for reduced libido/erectile dysfunction were mean = 0.81 and median = 0.92. Utilities did not differ significantly between cohorts. Assuming a 6-mo course of ADT, men reported being willing to trade 3 mo of life expectancy to avoid fatigue due to ADT and 1.8 mo to avoid sexual side effects. Patients in the ADT cohort were willing to accept the side effects of ADT in exchange for a mean 8% absolute increase in survival, whereas patients in the no ADT cohort required a 16% increase ( P < 0.001). Conclusions. When considering treatment with ADT, men with IRPC identified fatigue and sexual dysfunction as the most bothersome side effects. Patients who declined ADT expected a larger survival benefit than those who opted for treatment. Both groups expected a survival benefit exceeding that shown by recent trials, suggesting some men may be selecting treatments inconsistent with their preferences.

          Highlights
          • This study demonstrates that prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy are reluctant to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) most commonly due to anticipated fatigue and loss of libido/erectile dysfunction.

          • Men who had received ADT reported they would require an average 8% absolute increase in survival to tolerate its side effects, whereas those who declined ADT would require an average 16% increase.

          • Required thresholds are well above the estimated absolute survival benefit for ADT demonstrated in recent clinical trials, suggesting an unmet need for improved patient education regarding the risks and benefits of ADT.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from proton radiation oncology group/american college of radiology 95-09.

          PURPOSE To test the hypothesis that increasing radiation dose delivered to men with early-stage prostate cancer improves clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with T1b-T2b prostate cancer and prostate-specific antigen /= 3 genitourinary toxicity, and 1% of patients in the high-dose arm experienced late grade >/= 3 GI toxicity. CONCLUSION This randomized controlled trial shows superior long-term cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer receiving high-dose versus conventional-dose radiation. This was achieved without an increase in grade >/= 3 late urinary or rectal morbidity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Control Preferences Scale.

            The Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was developed to measure a construct that emerged from a grounded theory of how treatment decisions are made among people with life-threatening illnesses. The control preferences construct is defined as "the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment." The CPS consists of five cards that each portrays a different role in treatment decision-making using a statement and a cartoon. These roles range from the individual making the treatment decisions, through the individual making the decisions jointly with the physician, to the physician making the decisions. The CPS involves subjects in making a series of paired comparisons to provide their total preference order over the five cards. These preference orders are analyzed using unfolding theory to determine the distribution of preferences in different populations and the effect of covariates on consumer preferences. The scale has been tested in a variety of populations, ranging from the general public to highly stressed groups. The CPS has proven to be a clinically relevant, easily administered, valid, and reliable measure of preferred roles in health-care decision-making.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of Different Exercise Modalities on Fatigue in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Year-long Randomised Controlled Trial

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                MDM Policy Pract
                MDM Policy Pract
                MPP
                spmpp
                MDM Policy & Practice
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2381-4683
                15 November 2022
                Jul-Dec 2022
                : 7
                : 2
                : 23814683221137752
                Affiliations
                [1-23814683221137752]Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [2-23814683221137752]Departments of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [3-23814683221137752]Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [4-23814683221137752]Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [5-23814683221137752]Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [6-23814683221137752]Departments of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [7-23814683221137752]Departments of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [8-23814683221137752]Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Karen E. Hoffman, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1422, Houston, TX 77030, USA. ( KHoffman1@ 123456mdanderson.org ).
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3468-3359
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3481-5980
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8811-5854
                Article
                10.1177_23814683221137752
                10.1177/23814683221137752
                9669695
                36405544
                71787a05-de11-4bd2-9ca0-e4659f27a57d
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 18 July 2022
                : 18 October 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: National Cancer Institute, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000054;
                Award ID: P30 CA016672
                Funded by: American Cancer Society, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000048;
                Award ID: MRSG-18-225-01
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                July-December 2022
                ts1

                hormone therapy,prostate adenocarcinoma,fatigue,hot flashes,impotence,libido

                Comments

                Comment on this article