Dataset Information

A Meta-Analysis and Indirect Comparison of Endothelin A Receptor Antagonist for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Endothelin A (ET-A) receptor antagonists including zibotentan and atrasentan, have been suggested as a treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis and indirect comparison to assess the efficacy and safety of ET-A receptor antagonists for treatment of CRPC.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to November 2014 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed ET-A receptor antagonists for treatment of CRPC. Meta-analysis was conducted by STATA version 12.0 software.

Results

Eight RCTs were identified, involving 6,065 patients. The results of direct comparison showed that compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in the improvement of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to disease progression (TTP), and total adverse events (AEs) with ET-A receptor antagonist treatment for CRPC. The results of ET-A receptor antagonists plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone were similar. The indirect comparisons showed that there were no significant differences between zibotentan plus docetaxel versus atrasentan plus docetaxel when compared with docetaxel alone or zibotentan versus atrasenta compared with placebo in the improvement of PFS, OS, TTP, and total adverse events.

Conclusions

There were no significant benefits for ET-A receptor antagonists with or without docetaxel in the improvement of PFS, OS, TTP, and overall AEs. And there were no significant differences between zibotentan and atrasentan. Single-agent docetaxel should remain as one of the standard treatments.

SUBMITTER: Qi P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4508042 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Meta-Analysis and Indirect Comparison of Endothelin A Receptor Antagonist for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Qi Ping P Chen Ming M Zhang Li-xiu LX Song Rui-xia RX He Zhen-hua ZH Wang Zhi-ping ZP

PloS one 20150720 7

<h4>Background</h4>Endothelin A (ET-A) receptor antagonists including zibotentan and atrasentan, have been suggested as a treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis and indirect comparison to assess the efficacy and safety of ET-A receptor antagonists for treatment of CRPC.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to November 2014 to identify randomized controlled trial ...[more]

PMID: 26192308

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), 3 drugs under patent protection-apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide-were approved based on randomized, placebo-controlled trials; 1 drug with generic availability, abiraterone acetate, showed efficacy in a single-arm trial and is commonly prescribed. Lacking head-to-head trials, the optimal treatment for nmCRPC is unknown, despite widely varied treatment costs. We compared the efficacy and safety of nmCRPC treatments.MethodsWe searched bibliographic databases, regulatory documents, and trial registries for nmCRPC trials. We included published results and, when available, original data. We performed matching-adjusted indirect comparison and network meta-analysis and compared treatments regarding metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and serious adverse events.ResultsWe analyzed 5 trials with 4360 participants. Compared with placebo, abiraterone acetate engendered the lowest hazard of metastasis and death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.12-0.41), followed by apalutamide (HR = 0.28, 95% CrI = 0.23-0.34), enzalutamide (HR = 0.30, 95% CrI = 0.25-0.36), and darolutamide (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.34-0.49); darolutamide led to the lowest hazard of death (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.53-0.90), followed by enzalutamide (HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.61-0.87) and apalutamide (HR = 0.75, 95% CrI = 0.59-0.95); darolutamide resulted in the lowest odds of serious adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32, 95% CrI = 1.02-1.70), followed by enzalutamide (OR =1.43, 95% CrI = 1.08-1.89), apalutamide (OR = 1.58, 95% CrI = 1.23-2.03), and abiraterone acetate (OR = 1.94, 95% CrI = 1.17-3.22).ConclusionsFor nmCRPC, darolutamide offered optimal efficacy and safety among approved drugs, and abiraterone acetate may offer comparable metastasis-free survival benefit with cost savings from generic availability. Future research is needed to more fully examine the benefit of abiraterone acetate.

Project description:IntroductionThree novel androgen receptor inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. All three therapies have demonstrated prolonged metastasis-free survival in their respective phase III trials, with differing safety profiles. The objective of this study was to compare the mean per-patient costs of all-cause adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization between darolutamide versus apalutamide and enzalutamide for nmCRPC in the USA.MethodsAll-cause grade ≥ 3 AEs with corresponding any-grade AEs reported among at least 10% of patients in any arm of the ARAMIS (darolutamide), SPARTAN (apalutamide), and PROSPER (enzalutamide) trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. After matching-adjusted indirect comparison, AE costs were calculated by multiplying the AE rates from the trials by their respective unit costs of hospitalization taken from the US Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database. Sensitivity analyses which further included any-grade AEs reported among at least 5% of patients were also performed.ResultsAfter reweighting and adjusting for the trials' placebo arms, the mean per-patient AE costs were $1021 and $387 lower for darolutamide than for apalutamide and enzalutamide, respectively, over the trials' duration (SPARTAN and PROSPER, 43 months; ARAMIS, 48 months). For darolutamide vs. apalutamide, the largest drivers of the per-patient cost differences were fracture (adjusted difference $416), hypertension ($143), and rash ($219); for darolutamide vs. enzalutamide, they were fatigue not including asthenia ($290) and hypertension including increased blood pressure (i.e., any AE of hypertension or with elevated blood pressure not yet classified as hypertension) ($60). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary results.ConclusionsPatients with nmCRPC treated with darolutamide in ARAMIS incurred lower AE-related costs (USD), as determined using HCUP costing data, compared with patients treated with either apalutamide (in SPARTAN) or enzalutamide (in PROSPER).

Project description:Lessons learnedDespite evidence for a role for prolactin signaling in breast and prostate tumorigenesis, a prolactin receptor-binding monoclonal antibody has not produced clinical efficacy.Increased serum prolactin levels may be a biomarker for prolactin receptor inhibition.Results from the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics (PD) studies suggest that inappropriately long dosing intervals and insufficient exposure to LFA102 may have resulted in lack of antitumor efficacy.Based on preclinical data, combination therapy of LFA102 with those novel agents targeting hormonal pathways in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and metastatic breast cancer is promising.Given the PD evidence of prolactin receptor blockade by LFA102, this drug has the potential to be used in conditions such as hyperprolactinemia that are associated with high prolactin levels.BackgroundProlactin receptor (PRLR) signaling is implicated in breast and prostate cancer. LFA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity.MethodsPatients with PRLR-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) received doses of LFA102 at 3-60 mg/kg intravenously once every 4 weeks. Objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE) to investigate the safety/tolerability of LFA102 and to assess pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and antitumor activity.ResultsA total of 73 patients were enrolled at 5 dose levels. The MTD was not reached because of lack of dose-limiting toxicities. The RDE was established at 60 mg/kg based on PK and PD analysis and safety data. The most common all-cause adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (44%) and nausea (33%) regardless of relationship. Grade 3/4 AEs reported to be related to LFA102 occurred in 4% of patients. LFA102 exposure increased approximately dose proportionally across the doses tested. Serum prolactin levels increased in response to LFA102 administration, suggesting its potential as a biomarker for PRLR inhibition. No antitumor activity was detected.ConclusionTreatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.

Dataset Information

A Meta-Analysis and Indirect Comparison of Endothelin A Receptor Antagonist for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Meta-Analysis and Indirect Comparison of Endothelin A Receptor Antagonist for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets