Stakeholder Insight: Prostate Cancer
Scope
Report Highlights
Reasons to Purchase
Table of Contents
- About Datamonitor Healthcare - page 2
- About the Oncology pharmaceutical analysis team - page 2
- CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - page 3
- CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION - page 13
- Scope - page 13
- The prostate - page 14
- Prostate cancer - page 14
- Histology - page 15
- Etiology - page 15
- Age and race - page 16
- Family history - page 16
- Hormones - page 17
- Dietary fat - page 17
- CHAPTER 3 TREATMENT TREES - page 19
- US - page 20
- Japan - page 23
- France - page 26
- Germany - page 29
- Italy - page 32
- Spain - page 35
- UK - page 38
- CHAPTER 4 ANTIHORMONAL THERAPIES - page 41
- Stages of diagnosis - page 41
- Mis-staging may be common in some markets - page 43
- Antihormonal therapy - page 44
- Localized stage - page 45
- Watchful waiting - page 45
- Increasing use of adjuvant hormonal therapy in localized stage - page 46
- Neoadjuvant therapy remains investigational - page 48
- NICE impeding early-stage use in the UK - page 48
- Advanced surgical technique limits early-stage antihormonal use in the US - page 48
- Locally advanced stage - page 49
- Timing of antihormonal treatment is unresolved - page 49
- Significant increase in the use of antihormonal therapy - page 50
- Lower proportion of locally advanced patients treated with antihormonals in Spain and the UK - page 50
- Advanced stage - page 50
- A quarter of advanced patients are not treated with antihormonals - page 50
- Some advanced patients are treated with chemotherapy - page 51
- The highest treatment rate in Spain... - page 52
- ...but remains low in the UK - page 53
- Fewer patients are treated in advanced stage in Italy - page 53
- Localized stage - page 45
- Stages of diagnosis - page 41
- CHAPTER 5 ANTIHORMONAL DRUGS - page 54
- Localized stage - page 54
- LHRH agonist monotherapy is the standard of care in localized stage - page 55
- Leuprolide is the more dominant LHRH agonist - page 56
- Zoladex's uptake is hampered by its administration - page 57
- Companies' "value-added services" - page 58
- Medicare policy is affecting Lupron's uptake - page 59
- Opportunity for generics companies - page 59
- The use of buserelin is high in the US despite not being approved - page 62
- Bicalutamide is the leading anti-androgen - page 63
- Casodex 150mg is minimally used... - page 64
- ...but three times the 50mg dose is used instead in some cases - page 65
- The lack of clinical evidence for TAB in localized stage - page 67
- TAB is commonly used in Japan - page 68
- Leuprolide-based TAB regimens are most commonly used - page 69
- Bicalutamide is the preferred choice of anti-androgen for TAB - page 71
- The same three TAB regimens occupy the top three spot - page 74
- LHRH agonist monotherapy is the standard of care in localized stage - page 55
- Locally advanced stage - page 75
- More aggressive therapy in locally advanced stage - page 77
- Leuprolide increases its lead over goserelin - page 78
- Increase in use of longer-acting formulation leuprolide - page 79
- Abarelix is minimally used - page 80
- Bicalutamide remains dominant - page 81
- Bicalutamide 150mg remains affected by the EPC trial results - page 82
- Bicalutamide 80mg in Japan - page 83
- Flutamide increases its share overall - page 84
- TAB has yet to gain a wider uptake - page 85
- Minimal increase from localized stage - page 86
- Leuprolide-based regimens are preferred for TAB - page 87
- Cyproterone-based regimens are still used - page 87
- Decrease in the use of goserelin - page 88
- More aggressive therapy in locally advanced stage - page 77
- Advanced stage - page 89
- LHRH agonist monotherapy remains the standard therapy in advanced stage - page 94
- Leuprolide monotherapy remains the mainstay of LHRH agonist monotherapy - page 95
- Three-month depot is the leading formulation - page 95
- Bicalutamide remains in the driving seat - page 97
- US significantly increases the use of bicalutamide... - page 98
- ...but flutamide use in Europe remains significant - page 99
- The use of TAB is surprisingly low - page 100
- Similar level of prescribing as in locally advanced stage - page 101
- Familiar TAB regimens are used - page 102
- LHRH agonist monotherapy remains the standard therapy in advanced stage - page 94
- Localized stage - page 54
- CHAPTER 6 THE USE OF ANTIHORMONALS BETWEEN 2003 AND 2005 - page 103
- Changes in the use of drug classes - page 103
- Significant increase in the use of LHRH agonist monotherapy at the expense of TAB - page 104
- Decline in the use of anti-androgen in localized stage - page 106
- Market differences - page 107
- The biggest shift has been in Italy and Spain - page 108
- Decrease in use of TAB in Japan - page 109
- Flat in the UK - page 109
- Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonists between 2003 and 2005 - page 109
- Significant decrease in the use of goserelin - page 111
- Buserelin usage is increased between 2003 and 2005 - page 111
- Market differences - page 112
- Significant decrease in the use of leuprolide in the US - page 113
- AstraZeneca's decreasing influence in the UK and Germany? - page 114
- Percentage of patients receiving anti-androgens between 2003 and 2005 - page 114
- Negative sentiments for bicalutamide 150mg spreads to other stages - page 115
- Cyproterone nearing its end of commercial life - page 116
- Flutamide benefiting from others' 'misfortunes' - page 116
- Market differences - page 117
- AstraZeneca needs to disseminate data to European physicians - page 118
- The revival of flutamide in Europe - page 119
- Percentage of patients treated with TAB between 2003 and 2005 - page 120
- AstraZeneca losing grip in the TAB market - page 121
- Market differences - page 122
- Considerable decline in the use of leuprolide plus bicalutamide in the US and Japan... - page 123
- ...but increase in Spain and the UK - page 124
- Major increase in the leuprolide plus flutamide combination in Europe - page 124
- Decline in the use of AstraZeneca's drugs - page 124
- Changes in the use of drug classes - page 103
- CHAPTER 7 DURATION OF TREATMENT - page 125
- Treatment duration - page 125
- LHRH agonists - page 125
- Lack of consensus in localized stage - page 127
- Shorter treatment duration in Japan - page 127
- Anti-androgens - page 127
- Physicians in most European markets prescribe anti-androgens for shorter - page 128
- Longer duration of treatment in more advanced stages - page 128
- Total androgen blockade - page 129
- Shorter duration of treatment in Europe... - page 130
- ...except the UK - page 131
- Oncologists prescribe TAB for longer - page 131
- Overall average treatment duration - page 132
- LHRH agonists - page 125
- Intermittent hormonal therapy - page 133
- IHT is used most commonly in localized stage - page 135
- Widespread use in Spain... - page 135
- ...but limited usage in Italy and the UK - page 136
- Reduced usage of IHT in more advanced stages - page 136
- The use of IHT between 2003 and 2005 - page 136
- Increase in IHT use in every market since 2003 - page 138
- Biggest increase in Japan - page 138
- Minimal increase in the UK - page 138
- Cost pressure will continue to drive the uptake of IHT - page 138
- IHT is used most commonly in localized stage - page 135
- Treatment duration - page 125
- CHAPTER 8 RECURRENT PROSTATE CANCER - page 140
- Remission rate - page 140
- The chronic nature of prostate cancer - page 141
- Aggressive TAB therapy benefiting localized patients in Japan - page 141
- Recurrence rate - page 142
- Poor disease control in France? - page 143
- Treatment of recurrent prostate cancer - page 144
- Leuprolide remains the dominant LHRH agonist - page 146
- Minimal use of long-acting leuprolide - page 148
- Increase in the use of bicalutamide - page 150
- Increase in 150mg dosage despite the lack of approval - page 151
- Leuprolide- and bicalutamide-based regimens are the mainstay of TAB regimens - page 152
- Less uniformity in recurrent disease - page 153
- The top three TAB regimens in the seven major markets - page 154
- Leuprolide remains the dominant LHRH agonist - page 146
- Remission rate - page 140
- CHAPTER 9 HORMONE-REFRACTORY PROSTATE CANCER - page 155
- Progression to HRPC - page 155
- High progression rate in localized stage in France, Germany and Spain - page 156
- Discrepancy in advanced stages across the markets - page 157
- Time to HRPC progression - page 157
- Long time to progression in the UK in localized stage - page 158
- Asymptomatic versus symptomatic HRPC - page 159
- Nearly equal split - page 160
- Active treatment of HRPC - page 161
- Higher proportion of symptomatic patients are actively treated - page 162
- Drug regimens for asymptomatic HRPC - page 162
- Top three drug regimens for asymptomatic HRPC - page 164
- Estramustine-based regimens are the best of poor bunch? - page 166
- Taxotere is catching up - page 169
- Taxol is also used - page 171
- Better outcome for oral Navelbine? - page 172
- Mitoxantrone remains 'popular' for now - page 173
- Top three drug regimens for asymptomatic HRPC - page 164
- Drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC - page 174
- Top three drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC - page 176
- Estramustine monotherapy is still the gold standard - page 178
- Taxotere remains the dominant cytotoxic - page 180
- Decrease in Taxotere use in symptomatic stage in France, Germany and Spain - page 182
- Mitoxantrone use decreases significantly in Italy - page 184
- Top three drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC - page 176
- Drug regimens for HRPC in 2003 and 2005 - page 185
- Estramustine monotherapy increases in use between 2003 and 2005 - page 187
- Increase in taxane-based regimens - page 187
- No increase for vinorelbine - page 187
- Decreasing use of 'older' drugs - page 188
- Progression to HRPC - page 155
- CHAPTER 10 DRUGS IN DEVELOPMENT FOR PROSTATE CANCER - page 189
- Xinlay (atrasentan) [Abbott] - page 190
- Physician awareness of Xinlay - page 190
- Physician rating of Xinlay - page 192
- Satraplatin [GPC Biotech] - page 194
- Physician awareness of satraplatin - page 194
- Physician rating of satraplatin - page 195
- Provenge [Dendreon] - page 197
- Physician awareness of Provenge - page 198
- Physician rating of Provenge - page 200
- DN-101 (calcitriol) [Novacea] - page 202
- Physician awareness of DN-101 - page 202
- Physician rating of DN-101 - page 203
- Thalomid (thalidomide) [Celgene] - page 205
- Physician awareness of Thalomid - page 206
- Physician rating of Thalomid - page 207
- GVAX [Cell Genesys] - page 208
- Physician awareness of GVAX - page 208
- Physician rating of GVAX - page 210
- Comparative awareness and physician ratings of pipeline drugs for prostate cancer - page 212
- Xinlay (atrasentan) [Abbott] - page 190
- CHAPTER 11 FUTURE PRESCRIBING - page 214
- Drug regimens for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in 2010 - page 214
- LHRH agonist monotherapy will still be the standard of care especially in France, Italy and the UK - page 215
- Physicians will remain skeptical of TAB - page 216
- Chemotherapy plus antihormonals will gain support - page 216
- Molecular-targeted agents will be minimally used - page 217
- Trends in prescribing for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 219
- Drug regimens for HRPC in 2010 - page 222
- Taxane-based regimens will be the most commonly used drug therapies for HRPC - page 223
- Novel agents are not expected to make a significant impact - page 224
- Trends in prescribing for HRPC - page 225
- Drug regimens for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in 2010 - page 214
- CHAPTER 12 APPENDIX - page 227
- Supplementary data - page 227
- Respondent breakdown - page 241
- Opinion leader interview transcripts - page 242
- Dr Judd W Moul, Professor and Chief, Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, NC, US - page 242
- Dr Daniel Petrylak, Director of Genitourinary Oncology Program, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, NY, US - page 250
- Dr Alessandro Sciarra, Department of Urology, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy - page 258
- Dr Marcos Lujan, Urology Department, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain - page 264
- Study questionnaire - page 270
- References - page 290
- LIST OF TABLES - page 298
- LIST OF FIGURES - page 304
- About Datamonitor - page 310
- About Datamonitor Healthcare - page 310
- About the Oncology analysis team - page 311
- Disclaimer - page 312
- About Datamonitor - page 310
- List of Tables
- Table 1: Stages of prostate cancer - page 41
- Table 2: Percentage of prostate cancer patients diagnosed in each stage - page 42
- Table 3: Percentage of prostate cancer patients treated with antihormonal therapy in each stage of prostate cancer - page 44
- Table 4: Randomized trials evaluating the use of early hormonal therapy versus watchful waiting - page 49
- Table 5: Percentage of patients treated with antihormonal drug classes for localized prostate cancer - page 54
- Table 6: Percentage of patients in localized stage receiving LHRH agonist monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 56
- Table 7: Percentage of patients in localized stage receiving three-month depot formulation prescribed - page 60
- Table 8: Percentage breakdown of patients in localized stage receiving different leuprolide formulations in the seven major markets - page 60
- Table 9: Percentage of localized prostate cancer patients receiving anti-androgen monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 63
- Table 10: Percentage of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with TAB regimens in the seven major markets - page 67
- Table 11: Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonist-based TAB regimens - page 69
- Table 12: Percentage of patients receiving anti-androgen-based TAB regimens - page 71
- Table 13: Percentage of patients receiving antihormonal drug classes for locally advanced prostate cancer - page 75
- Table 14: Percentage of patients in locally advanced stage treated with LHRH agonist monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 77
- Table 15: Percentage breakdown of different leuprolide formulations in locally advanced stage in the seven major markets - page 79
- Table 16: Percentage of patients in locally advanced stage receiving anti-androgen monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 81
- Table 17: Percentage of patients treated with various TAB regimens for locally advanced prostate cancer - page 85
- Table 18: Percentage of advanced prostate cancer patients treated with antihormonal drug classes - page 89
- Table 19: Percentage of patients who are treated with TAB by oncologists and urologists in the US - page 91
- Table 20: Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonist monotherapy in advanced stage in the seven major markets - page 94
- Table 21: Percentage breakdown of patients treated with different leuprolide formulations in advanced stage in the seven major markets - page 95
- Table 22: Percentage of patients in advanced stage treated with anti-androgen monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 97
- Table 23: Percentage of patients treated with TAB regimens for advanced prostate cancer - page 100
- Table 24: Comparative data for the percentage of patients treated with antihormonal drug classes in 2003 and 2005 - page 103
- Table 25: Percentage of advanced patients treated with antihormonal drug classes in the seven major markets in 2003 and 2005 - page 107
- Table 26: Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonists in 2003 and 2005 - page 110
- Table 27: Percentage of patients in advanced stage receiving LHRH agonists in the seven major markets between 2003 and 2005 - page 112
- Table 28: Percentage of patients treated with anti-androgens in 2003 and 2005 - page 114
- Table 29: Percentage of patients treated with anti-androgens in locally advanced stage in the seven major markets between 2003 and 2005 - page 117
- Table 30: Percentage of patients receiving TAB regimens in 2003 and 2005 - page 120
- Table 31: Percentage of patients receiving TAB regimens in advanced stage in the seven major markets between 2003 and 2005 - page 122
- Table 32: Average duration of treatment with LHRH agonists in the seven major markets (months) - page 126
- Table 33: Average duration of treatment with anti-androgens in the seven major markets - page 127
- Table 34: Average duration of treatment with TAB in the seven major markets - page 129
- Table 35: Overall average treatment duration in each stage - page 132
- Table 36: Percentage of prostate cancer patients treated with intermittent hormonal therapy in the seven major markets - page 134
- Table 37: Percentage of patients treated with IHT in 2003 and 2005 - page 137
- Table 38: Percentage of prostate cancer patents experiencing remission in the seven major markets in each stage - page 140
- Table 39: Percentage of prostate cancer patients in remission that experience recurrence in the seven major markets in each stage - page 142
- Table 40: Percentage of patients treated with antihormonal drug classes for recurrent prostate cancer in the seven major markets - page 144
- Table 41: Percentage of patients receiving LHRH agonists for the treatment of recurrent prostate cancer in the seven major markets - page 146
- Table 42: Percentage of patients treated with various formulations of leuprolide in the seven major markets - page 148
- Table 43: Percentage of patients treated with anti-androgens for recurrent prostate cancer in the seven major markets - page 150
- Table 44: Percentage of patients treated with TAB regimens in the recurrent stage in the seven major markets - page 152
- Table 45: Percentage of patients progressing to HRPC in each stage - page 155
- Table 46: Mean duration of antihormonal treatment (in months) before patients become hormone-refractory - page 157
- Table 47: Percentage of patients with asymptomatic versus symptomatic HRPC - page 159
- Table 48: Percentage of HRPC patients receiving active treatment - page 161
- Table 49: Percentage of patients treated with drug regimens for asymptomatic HRPC - page 162
- Table 50: Top three drug regimens for asymptomatic HRPC in the seven major markets - page 164
- Table 51: Percentage of asymptomatic HRPC patients treated with estramustine-based versus newer generation cytotoxic-based regimens - page 168
- Table 52: Percentage of patients treated with paclitaxel, docetaxel and vinorelbine in asymptomatic HRPC patients in the seven major markets - page 169
- Table 53: Percentage of patients treated with drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC - page 174
- Table 54: Top three drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC in the seven major markets - page 176
- Table 55: Comparison of percentage of patients treated with estramustine-based regimens in asymptomatic and symptomatic HRPC - page 178
- Table 56: Percentage of patients treated with paclitaxel, docetaxel and vinorelbine for symptomatic HRPC in the seven major markets - page 180
- Table 57: Percentage of patients treated with docetaxel-based regimens for asymptomatic and symptomatic HRPC - page 182
- Table 58: Percentage of patients treated with mitoxantrone-based regimens for asymptomatic and symptomatic HRPC - page 184
- Table 59: Percentage of HRPC patients treated with drug regimens in 2003 and 2005 - page 186
- Table 60: Late-phase pipeline drugs for prostate cancer - page 189
- Table 61: Percentage of physicians aware of Xinlay - page 190
- Table 62: Physician ratings of Xinlay in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 192
- Table 63: Percentage of physicians aware of satraplatin - page 194
- Table 64: Physician ratings of satraplatin in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 196
- Table 65: Percentage of physicians aware of Provenge - page 198
- Table 66: Physician ratings of Provenge in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 200
- Table 67: Percentage of physicians aware of DN-101 - page 202
- Table 68: Physician ratings of DN-101 in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 204
- Table 69: Percentage of physicians aware of Thalomid - page 206
- Table 70: Physician ratings of Thalomid in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 207
- Table 71: Percentage of physicians aware of GVAX - page 209
- Table 72: Physician ratings of GVAX in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 210
- Table 73: Percentage of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients treated with drug regimens in 2010 - page 214
- Table 74: Drug regimens for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in 2003, 2005 and 2010 - page 219
- Table 75: Percentage of hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients treated with drug regimens in 2010 - page 222
- Table 76: Drug regimens for HRPC in 2003, 2005 and 2010 - page 225
- Table 77: Percentage of localized prostate cancer patients treated with LHRH agonists - page 227
- Table 78: Percentage of locally advanced prostate cancer patients treated with LHRH agonists - page 228
- Table 79: Percentage of advanced prostate cancer patients treated with LHRH agonists - page 229
- Table 80: Percentage of localized prostate cancer patients treated with TAB regimens - page 230
- Table 81: Percentage of locally advanced prostate cancer patients treated with TAB regimens - page 232
- Table 82: Percentage of advanced prostate cancer patients treated with TAB regimens - page 234
- Table 83: Percentage of recurrent prostate cancer patients treated with LHRH agonists - page 236
- Table 84: Percentage of recurrent prostate cancer patients treated with TAB regimens - page 237
- Table 85: Percentage of asymptomatic HRPC patients treated with drug regimens - page 239
- Table 86: Percentage of symptomatic HRPC patients treated with drug regimens - page 240
- Table 87: Respondent breakdown for Stakeholder Insight: Prostate Cancer - page 241
- List of Figures
- Figure 1: The prostate and its position in the male reproductive and urinary tract - page 14
- Figure 2: US treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 20
- Figure 3: US treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 21
- Figure 4: US treatment tree for HRPC - page 22
- Figure 5: Japan treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 23
- Figure 6: Japan treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 24
- Figure 7: Japan treatment tree for HRPC - page 25
- Figure 8: France treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 26
- Figure 9: France treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 27
- Figure 10: France treatment tree for HRPC - page 28
- Figure 11: Germany treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 29
- Figure 12: Germany treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 30
- Figure 13: Germany treatment tree for HRPC - page 31
- Figure 14: Italy treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 32
- Figure 15: Italy treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 33
- Figure 16: Italy treatment tree for HRPC - page 34
- Figure 17: Spain treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 35
- Figure 18: Spain treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 36
- Figure 19: Spain treatment tree for HRPC - page 37
- Figure 20: UK treatment tree for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer - page 38
- Figure 21: UK treatment tree for recurrent prostate cancer - page 39
- Figure 22: UK treatment tree for HRPC - page 40
- Figure 23: Percentage of prostate cancer patients diagnosed in each stage - page 43
- Figure 24: Percentage of prostate cancer patients treated with antihormonal therapy in each stage of prostate cancer - page 45
- Figure 25: Percentage of patients treated with antihormonal drug classes for localized prostate cancer - page 55
- Figure 26: Percentage of patients in localized stage receiving LHRH agonist monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 57
- Figure 27: Percentage breakdown of patients in localized stage receiving different leuprolide formulations in the seven major markets - page 61
- Figure 28: Percentage of localized prostate cancer patients receiving anti-androgen monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 64
- Figure 29: Percentage of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with TAB regimens in the seven major markets - page 68
- Figure 30: Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonist-based TAB regimens - page 70
- Figure 31: Percentage of patients receiving anti-androgen-based TAB regimens - page 72
- Figure 32: Top three TAB regimens in localized stage in each of the seven major markets - page 74
- Figure 33: Percentage of patients receiving antihormonal drug classes for locally advanced prostate cancer - page 76
- Figure 34: Percentage of patients in locally advanced stage treated with LHRH agonist monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 78
- Figure 35: Percentage breakdown of different leuprolide formulations in locally advanced stage in the seven major markets - page 80
- Figure 36: Percentage of patients in locally advanced stage receiving anti-androgen monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 82
- Figure 37: Percentage of patients treated with various TAB regimens for locally advanced prostate cancer - page 86
- Figure 38: Top three TAB regimens in locally advanced stage in each of the seven major markets - page 88
- Figure 39: Percentage of advanced prostate cancer patients treated with antihormonal drug classes - page 90
- Figure 40: Percentage of patients who are treated with TAB by oncologists and urologists in the US - page 92
- Figure 41: Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonist monotherapy in advanced stage in the seven major markets - page 94
- Figure 42: Percentage breakdown of patients treated with different leuprolide formulations in advanced stage in the seven major markets - page 96
- Figure 43: Percentage of patients in advanced stage treated with anti-androgen monotherapy in the seven major markets - page 98
- Figure 44: Percentage of patients treated with TAB regimens for advanced prostate cancer - page 101
- Figure 45: Top three TAB regimens in advanced stage in each of the seven major markets - page 102
- Figure 46: Comparative data for the percentage of patients treated with antihormonal drug classes in 2003 and 2005 - page 104
- Figure 47: Percentage of advanced patients treated with antihormonal drug classes in the seven major markets in 2003 and 2005 - page 108
- Figure 48: Percentage of patients treated with LHRH agonists in 2003 and 2005 - page 110
- Figure 49: Percentage of patients in advanced stage receiving LHRH agonists in the seven major markets between 2003 and 2005 - page 113
- Figure 50: Percentage of patients treated with anti-androgens in 2003 and 2005 - page 115
- Figure 51: Percentage of patients treated with anti-androgens in locally advanced stage in the seven major markets between 2003 and 2005 - page 118
- Figure 52: Percentage of patients receiving TAB regimens in 2003 and 2005 - page 121
- Figure 53: Percentage of patients receiving TAB regimens in advanced stage in the seven major markets between 2003 and 2005 - page 123
- Figure 54: Average duration of treatment with LHRH agonists in the seven major markets (months) - page 126
- Figure 55: Average duration of treatment with anti-androgens in the seven major markets (months) - page 128
- Figure 56: Average duration of treatment with TAB in the seven major markets (months) - page 130
- Figure 57: Overall average treatment duration in each stage - page 132
- Figure 58: Percentage of prostate cancer patients treated with intermittent hormonal therapy in the seven major markets - page 134
- Figure 59: Percentage of patients treated with IHT in 2003 and 2005 - page 137
- Figure 60: Percentage of prostate cancer patents experiencing remission in the seven major markets in each stage - page 141
- Figure 61: Percentage of prostate cancer patients in remission that experience recurrence in the seven major markets in each stage - page 143
- Figure 62: Percentage of patients treated with antihormonal drug classes for recurrent prostate cancer in the seven major markets - page 145
- Figure 63: Percentage of patients receiving LHRH agonists for the treatment of recurrent prostate cancer in the seven major markets - page 147
- Figure 64: Percentage of patients treated with various formulations of leuprolide in the seven major markets - page 149
- Figure 65: Percentage of patients treated with anti-androgens for recurrent prostate cancer in the seven major markets - page 151
- Figure 66: Percentage of patients treated with TAB regimens in the recurrent stage in the seven major markets - page 153
- Figure 67: Top three TAB regimens in recurrent stage in each of the seven major markets - page 154
- Figure 68: Percentage of patients progressing to HRPC in each stage - page 156
- Figure 69: Mean duration of antihormonal treatment (in months) before patients become hormone-refractory - page 158
- Figure 70: Percentage of patients with asymptomatic versus symptomatic HRPC - page 160
- Figure 71: Percentage of HRPC patients receiving active treatment - page 161
- Figure 72: Percentage of patients treated with drug regimens for asymptomatic HRPC - page 163
- Figure 73: Top three regimens for asymptomatic HRPC in the seven major markets - page 165
- Figure 74: Percentage of asymptomatic HRPC patients treated with estramustine-based versus newer generation cytotoxic-based regimens - page 168
- Figure 75: Percentage of patients treated with paclitaxel, docetaxel and vinorelbine in asymptomatic HRPC patients in the seven major markets - page 170
- Figure 76: Percentage of patients treated with drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC - page 175
- Figure 77: Top three drug regimens for symptomatic HRPC in the seven major markets - page 177
- Figure 78: Comparison of percentage of patients treated with estramustine-based regimens in asymptomatic and symptomatic HRPC - page 179
- Figure 79: Percentage of patients treated with paclitaxel, docetaxel and vinorelbine for symptomatic HRPC in the seven major markets - page 181
- Figure 80: Percentage of patients treated with docetaxel-based regimens for asymptomatic and symptomatic HRPC - page 183
- Figure 81: Percentage of patients treated with mitoxantrone-based regimens for asymptomatic and symptomatic HRPC - page 185
- Figure 82: Percentage of HRPC patients treated with drug regimens in 2003 and 2005 - page 186
- Figure 83: Percentage of physicians aware of Xinlay - page 191
- Figure 84: Physician ratings of Xinlay in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 193
- Figure 85: Percentage of physicians aware of satraplatin - page 195
- Figure 86: Physician ratings of satraplatin in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 196
- Figure 87: Percentage of physicians aware of Provenge - page 199
- Figure 88: Physician ratings of Provenge in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 201
- Figure 89: Percentage of physicians aware of DN-101 - page 203
- Figure 90: Physician ratings of DN-101 in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 204
- Figure 91: Percentage of physicians aware of Thalomid - page 206
- Figure 92: Physician ratings of Thalomid in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 208
- Figure 93: Percentage of physicians aware of GVAX - page 209
- Figure 94: Physician ratings of GVAX in the non-metastatic, metastatic and HRPC settings - page 211
- Figure 95: Comparative awareness of pipeline drugs for prostate cancer - page 212
- Figure 96: Comparative ratings of pipeline drugs for prostate cancer - page 213
- Figure 97: Percentage of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients treated with drug regimens in 2010 - page 215
- Figure 98: Drug regimens for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in 2003, 2005 and 2010 - page 220
- Figure 99: Percentage of hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients treated with drug regimens in 2010 - page 223
- Figure 100: Drug regimens for HRPC in 2003, 2005 and 2010 - page 225
Other users found this report page using the following search terms: Prostate Cancer prostate cancer patients remission monotherapy dr estramustine decrease percent prescribing
If you can't find a report that meets your needs contact LeadDiscovery. We are one of the few report providers with extensive drug development experience and we frequently use this knowledge to help clients source the most appropriate reports or produce reports for them from scratch.