4.4 Article

Quality of Life After Sipuleucel-T Therapy: Results From a Randomized, Double-blind Study in Patients With Androgen-dependent Prostate Cancer

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 410-415

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.049

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dendreon Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To collect and analyze quality-of-life (QOL) data from PROvenge Treatment and Early Cancer Treatment trial (PROTECT, NCT00779402), a phase III, randomized controlled trial of sipuleucel-T in patients with asymptomatic androgen-dependent prostate cancer. METHODS Patients experiencing prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy entered a 3- to 4-month run-in phase of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), followed by 2:1 randomization to sipuleucel-T or control. QOL was assessed throughout the run-in and 26-week post-randomization phases using the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Linear Analog Self-Assessment (LASA) scale, Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scale, and an elicited symptoms list. RESULTS One hundred seventy-six patients were randomized into 2 groups, the sipuleucel-T group (n = 117) or the control group (n = 59). The sample provided 80% power to detect a difference in fatigue interference score between treatment arms of 0.9 points. QOL declined predictably during ADT. At week 26, 26.2% of sipuleucel-T-treated patients and 21.6% of control-treated patients (P=.68) reported fatigue in the previous week, and the mean score for fatigue interference in the past 24 hours was 0.9 for both arms (P=.88). Results were comparable for usual fatigue (P=.91) and worst fatigue (P>.99). Mean LASA scores decreased in both groups (P=.26). The proportion of patients reporting better overall QOL on GRoC was similar (P=.62). CONCLUSION There is no clinically significant negative impact on QOL after sipuleucel-T treatment compared with control after a period of ADT in patients with asymptomatic androgen-dependent prostate cancer. UROLOGY 82: 410-415, 2013. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据