Therapeutic Advances in Urology (Dec 2014)

Selection criteria for initiation and renewal of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a French prospective observational study

  • Thierry Lebret,
  • Jean-Louis Davin,
  • Christophe Hennequin,
  • Igor Latorzeff,
  • Jean-Pierre Mignard,
  • Jean-Luc Moreau,
  • Dominique Rossi,
  • Alain Ruffion,
  • Marc Zerbib,
  • Stéphane Culine

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287214542418
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6

Abstract

Read online

Objectives: To define the profile of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) receiving a 3-month or 6-month formulation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist in France and the reasons for choosing between formulations. Methods: This prospective 1-year observational study included patients with PCa starting LHRH agonist therapy in everyday practice. Reasons for prescription and patient preference were recorded at inclusion, 3 or 6 months, and 12 months. The percentage of patients with a renewed initial prescription was recorded during follow up. Results: A total of 1438 patients with PCa were included. Hormonotherapy was initiated more frequently with a 6-month ( n = 903; 62.8%) than with a 3-month formulation ( n = 535; 37.2%). The initial prescription was renewed in most patients after 3 or 6 months (86.1%) and 12 months (71%); 170 patients switched from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. Presence of metastases influenced initial prescription (odds ratio 0.439; 95% confidence interval 1.095–1.892), with a 3-month formulation more often prescribed than a 6-month formulation to men with metastatic PCa at diagnosis (21.3% versus 15.8%, respectively). The most frequent reasons given by physicians for choosing the 6-month formulation were ‘simplification of therapeutic regimen’ (86.9%) or ‘fewer unnecessary visits’ (46.8%). Similar reasons were given for switching from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. The most frequent reasons given by physicians to initiate therapy with a 3-month formulation were ‘usual practice/habit’ (55.5%) or ‘closer patient management’ (46.2%). ‘Closer patient management’ and ‘reassuring effect upon patient’ were the main reasons for switching from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation during follow up. Approximately 80% of patients were satisfied with the formulation they were prescribed and patients’ reasons for preferring one formulation over another were similar to the physicians’ reasons for prescribing these formulations. Conclusions: Slow-release formulations of LHRH agonists are useful therapies for physicians treating patients with PCa and there may be a preference for the 6-month formulation.