566 ANAMEM: Prospective and observational study to evaluate cognitive changes in prostate cancer patients undergoing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue treatment

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. e566-e566a
Author(s):  
J. Morote ◽  
A. Tabernero ◽  
M.J. Ledo ◽  
J.P. Ciria ◽  
J.L. Domínguez-Escrig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hormone Analogue ◽  
Cognitive Changes ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone ◽  
Releasing Hormone

scholarly journals MP50-09 LUTEINIZING HORMONE-RELEASING HORMONE ANTAGONIST REDUCE SERUM ADRENAL ANDROGEN LEVELS IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS

2016 ◽  
Vol 195 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiyuki Miyazawa ◽  
Haruo Kato ◽  
Yosuke Furuya ◽  
Takashi Nitta ◽  
Yoshitaka Sekine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Adrenal Androgen ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone ◽  
Releasing Hormone ◽  
Androgen Levels

scholarly journals Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Meani ◽  
Mladen Solarić ◽  
Harri Visapää ◽  
Rose-Marie Rosén ◽  
Robert Janknegt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Healthcare Management ◽  
Lhrh Agonist ◽  
Specific Storage ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone ◽  
Releasing Hormone ◽  
Lhrh Agonists ◽  
Solid Implants

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is well established for the treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer. As clear differences in efficacy, safety, or tolerability between the available LHRH agonists are lacking, the healthcare management team needs to look to practical differences between the formulations when selecting therapy for their patients. Moreover, as the economic burden of prostate cancer rises alongside earlier diagnosis and improved survival, the possibility for cost savings by using products with specific features is growing in importance. Methods: A review was conducted to summarize the information on the different LHRH agonist formulations currently available and offer insight into their relative benefits and disadvantages from the perspectives of physicians, a pharmacist, and a nurse. Results: The leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate solid implants have the advantage of being ready to use with no requirement for refrigeration, whereas powder and microsphere formulations have to be reconstituted and have specific storage or handling constraints. The single-step administration of solid implants, therefore, has potential to reduce labor time and associated costs. Dosing frequency is another key consideration, as administering the injection provides an opportunity for face-to-face interaction between the patient and healthcare professionals to ensure therapy is optimized and give reassurance to patients. Prostate cancer patients are reported to prefer 3- or 6-monthly dosing, which aligns with the monitoring frequency recommended in European Association of Urology guidelines and has been shown to result in reduced annual costs compared with 1-month formulations. Conclusions: A number of practical differences exist between the different LHRH agonist preparations available, which may impact on clinical practice. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware and carefully consider these differences when selecting treatments for their prostate cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document