This paper circulates around the core theme of Introduction: With locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer patients, patient preference between intermittent (IAD) and continuous (CAD) androgen deprivation therapy has not been investigated. The goal of the study was to determine pat together with its essential aspects. It has been reviewed and purchased by the majority of students thus, this paper is rated 4.8 out of 5 points by the students. In addition to this, the price of this paper commences from £ 99. To get this paper written from the scratch, order this assignment now. 100% confidential, 100% plagiarism-free.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: With locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer patients, patient preference between intermittent (IAD) and continuous (CAD) androgen deprivation therapy has not been investigated. The goal of the study was to determine patients’ preference for IAD vs. CAD therapy.
The secondary aim was to elucidate demographic or treatment variables thatmay affect a patient’s preference for one type of hormonal treatment. Materials and Methods: Using a tradeoff model that demonstrates the difference
in outcome between IAD and CAD, a survey questionnaire was developed and administered to prostate cancer patients at the Odette Cancer Centre at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Only patients who had (1) locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) been previously treated for prostate cancer with relapsing prostate-specific antigen, or (3) slow metastatic disease were asked to participate. Data related to patients’ demographic information and their decisional preference factors were collected.
Results and Conclusions: Overall, 36 of 53 (68%) patients completed the survey. Most patients favoured IAD (n ¼ 32) over CAD (n ¼ 4). Patients currently on radical treatment (adjuvant hormone therapy and radiation
therapy) preferred CAD compared with patients who were not on radical treatment (P ¼ .044). Patients with high (>20 ng/L) pretreatment prostate-specific antigen showed preference for CAD; however, this was not
statistically significant (P ¼ 0.07). Patients from both groups viewed quality of life as the strongest influence on their treatment preference, but had diverging opinions on side effects and general well being. The results of
this pilot study could serve as a guide for future studies; a larger study combined with qualitative methodology may better address patients’ needs and minimize any regret over their hormonal treatment.
