Men's Preferences on Androgen Deprivation Therapy Options for Prostate Cancer Treatment

What is it about?

The study investigates the preferences of a group of men, some with and some without prostate cancer, regarding different androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) options, including LHRH agonist injections, oral LHRH antagonists, and transdermal oestradiol (tE2) patches. Conducted through focus groups with 24 UK men, the research reveals a strong preference for the oral LHRH antagonist, followed by tE2 patches, with the least preference for LHRH agonist injections. Key factors influencing choices include side effects, logistical considerations, and advice from trusted sources. The findings highlight the importance of offering choices in ADT to empower patients and improve treatment satisfaction, impacting future guidelines and reimbursement decisions.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This research is important because it addresses the decision-making process and preferences of men regarding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, highlighting the significance of patient choice in treatment. By exploring different ADT options, such as LHRH agonist injections, oral LHRH antagonists, and transdermal oestradiol (tE2) patches, the study emphasizes the role of patient autonomy in healthcare decisions. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the factors influencing treatment choices, which can inform healthcare providers and policymakers in developing patient-centered care strategies. This is particularly relevant as new therapies emerge, offering alternative options to traditional treatments with potentially different side-effect profiles and impacts on quality of life. Key Takeaways: 1. Patient Autonomy: The study highlights the importance of offering men a choice in ADT treatments, emphasizing that for some men involvement in decision-making is empowering and provides them with a sense of control over their healthcare. 2. Treatment Preferences: Most participants expressed a preference for oral LHRH antagonists or tE2 patches over LHRH agonist injections, driven by factors such as side effects, convenience, and advice from trusted individuals. 3. Impact on Guidelines: The research suggests that patient preferences should be considered by reimbursement committees and guideline-makers when evaluating alternative ADT strategies, potentially influencing future treatment guidelines and healthcare policies.