ABSTRACT
Background: Modalities of use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), like triptorelin, in real life, at the era of new strategies in advanced stages, lack of recent data. Our purpose here was to describe main reasons of choice of formulation and route (F&R) of triptorelin treatment (Tt) declared by the physician. Patient comorbidities, cancer aggressiveness and physician habits may influence their choices. Method(s): Initiated in 2020, a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional study is ongoing in France (TALISMAN, NCT04593420). Patients with histologically confirmed PCa, eligible for >= 12-month triptorelin Tt within its label were enrolled. Interim analysis of baseline data was planned when 50% of 786 planned patients were enrolled. Modalities of use, including F&R of triptorelin prescribed [monthly intramuscular (1mIM), every 3 months subcutaneous (3mSC) or intramuscular (3mIM), every 6 months intramuscular (6mIM)], were described. Result(s): 509 patients were included in the interim analysis. Overall population was presented at ASCO-GU22. Subgroups of F&R are presented here. Main F&R prescribed was 3mSC (70.7%). Main baseline parameters in F&R subgroups are presented (except for 1mIM, 4 patients (0.8%)). 31 patients had missing F&R data and were not included in subgroups. 62.1% of patients overall received at least one concomitant systemic Tt for comorbidity at baseline (58.2% in 3mIM, 61.7% in 3mSC and 6mIM). 18.6% and 13.0% of patients overall received, respectively, platelet aggregation inhibitor and anticoagulant;they were 20.9% and 13.8% in 3mSC, 7.3% and 5.5% in 3mIM, 18.5% and 11.1% in 6mIM. Conclusion(s): Main reason of choice of F&R of triptorelin was physician preferred F&R (47.7%);noticeable reasons included anticoagulants for the choice of 3mSC, planned total duration of Tt for 3mIM and 6mIM, and potential impact on compliance for 6mIM. As the covid pandemic may change the management of patients with prostate cancer, longer acting formulations may become more attractive.