Dataset Information

Comparison of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC.

Data sources

Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central), regulatory documents (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union clinical trials register) were searched from inception through November 5, 2019.

Study selection, data extraction, and synthesis

Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials evaluating the addition of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of mCSPC. Two investigators independently performed screening. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. A Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. Relative effects of competing treatments were assessed by bayesian network meta-analysis and survival models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.

Main outcomes and measures

Overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results

Seven trials with 7287 patients comparing 6 treatments (abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, docetaxel, enzalutamide, standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen, and placebo/no treatment) were identified. Ordered from the most to the least effective determined by results of clinical trials, treatments associated with improved overall survival when added to ADT included abiraterone acetate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-0.70), apalutamide (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and docetaxel (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89); treatments associated with improved radiographic progression-free survival when added to ADT included enzalutamide (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50), apalutamide (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.60), abiraterone acetate (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58), and docetaxel (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.74). Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased SAEs (odds ratio, 23.72; 95% CI, 13.37-45.15), abiraterone acetate with slightly increased SAEs (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), and other treatments with no significant increase in SAEs. Risk of bias was noted for 4 trials with open-label design, 3 trials with missing data, and 2 trials with potential unprespecified analyses.

Conclusions and relevance

In this network meta-analysis, as add-on treatments to ADT, abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest overall survival benefits with relatively low SAE risks. Although enzalutamide may improve radiographic progression-free survival to the greatest extent, longer follow-up is needed to examine the overall survival benefits associated with enzalutamide.

SUBMITTER: Wang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7809610 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Lacking head-to-head trial, the optimal treatment for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel failure is unclear. This study is to compare the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in patients who progressed after docetaxel to aid clinical decision-making. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 15th, 2021. The outcomes of interest include overall survival (OS), biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. Indirect comparisons of competing treatments were performed via Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Five trials with 3,862 patients comparing four treatments (abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223) were identified. All the four treatments were associated with improved OS and bPFS relative to best supportive care. Among them, enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% credible interval [Crl]: 0.49-0.69) had the highest probability of ranking first in terms of OS, followed by cabazitaxel (HR = 0.70, 95% Crl: 0.59-0.83), radium-223 (HR = 0.71, 95% Crl: 0.56-0.90) and abiraterone (HR = 0.73, 95% Crl: 0.63-0.84). Similarly, enzalutamide (HR = 0.25, 95% Crl: 0.20-0.31) showed the greatest improvement of bPFS, followed by abiraterone (HR = 0.60, 95% Crl: 0.51-0.71) and cabazitaxel (HR = 0.75, 95% Crl: 0.63-0.89). In terms of safety, treatments ranked from the safest to the least safe were radium-223 (OR = 0.58, 95% Crl: 0.20-1.68), enzalutamide (OR = 0.80, 95% Crl: 0.28-2.29), abiraterone (OR = 0.94, 95% Crl: 0.39-2.27) and cabazitaxel (OR = 2.50, 95% Crl: 0.84-7.44). Conclusion: For patients with mCRPC who progressed after docetaxel, enzalutamide may offer the most significant survival benefits and satisfying safety. Cabazitaxel is effective in post-docetaxel settings but associated with a high risk of SAEs. Although network meta-analysis provides indirect comparisons and ranking probabilities, the results should be treated with caution as it cannot replace randomized direct comparison. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020223040, identifier CRD42020223040.

Project description:ImportanceThe effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available.Study selectionPhase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life.ResultsThis report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT.Conclusions and relevanceThe potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

Project description:Purpose: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available docetaxel-based systemic triplet therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods: We searched for eligible publications in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Improvements in overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free time (rPFS) were compared indirectly using network meta-analysis and evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Other secondary endpoints, such as time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and/or adverse events (AEs), were also compared and evaluated. Results: Five trials were selected and analyzed using a network meta-analysis. Compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel, darolutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.57–0.80) and abiraterone (HR: 0.75, 95% CrI: 0.59–0.95) triplet therapy had significantly longer OS, and darolutamide triplet therapy was the first treatment ranked. Abiraterone (HR: 0.49, 95% CrI: 0.39–0.61) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.52, 95% CrI: 0.30–0.89) had significantly better rPFS than ADT plus docetaxel; however, all three therapies, including abiraterone, apalutamide, and enzalutamide, were the best options with a similar SUCRA. At most secondary endpoints, systemic triplet therapy was superior to ADT plus docetaxel. The risk of any AEs in darolutamide or abiraterone triplet therapy was comparable with ADT plus docetaxel (odds ratio [OR]: 2.53, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.68–12.63; OR: 1.07, 95% CrI: 0.03–36.25). Abiraterone triplet therapy had an increased risk of grade≥3 AEs (OR: 1.56, 95% CrI: 1.15–2.11). Conclusion: Systemic triplet therapy was more effective than ADT plus docetaxel for mHSPC. Of the triplet therapy regimens, darolutamide ranked first in terms of improved OS. Abiraterone and enzalutamide triplet ranked first in terms of rFPS, however, it did not confer a statistically difference among all triplet regimens. The overall risk of AEs was comparable. More studies are required for current and potential combinations of systemic triplet therapy.

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.