Dataset Information

Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide have all been approved by Food and Drug Administration to treat high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) since 2018 based on interim results of several phase III clinical trials. Final analyses of long-term overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) results of these trials have been successively published recently. To help clinical practice to precisely select optimal treatment for high-risk nmCRPC patients, we performed a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the final long-term results among these medications.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for phase III clinical trial that reports OS and AEs results in nmCRPC patients published before January 30, 2021. Primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes were Time to first chemotherapy, Subsequent antineoplastic therapy rate, and AEs. Firstly, class-level effect was assessed as the second-generation androgen receptor antagonists (SGARAs) were regarded as one whole class compared with placebo through traditional meta-analysis by using Revman 5.4, then a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to give indirect comparison among SGARAs by using R 3.5.3 software. Subgroup analysis of OS was only conducted in the certain subgroups which were available in all included studies.

Results

Three eligible studies including 4,104 participants were finally selected. OS was significantly improved by the SGARAs as a class compared with placebo (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66–0.84). Darolutamide had the highest likelihood of providing best OS (p-score=0.802). SGARAs also significantly delayed the first time to chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50–0.66). Patients who received darolutamide experienced similar toxicity compared with placebo regarding AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0–1.7) and serious AEs (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.99–1.6). When compared with darolutamide, enzalutamide caused significantly higher toxicity in terms of any AEs (OR, 2.3; 95% CI,1.5–3.7) and AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.2), apalutamide caused significantly more AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.7) and serious AEs (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3–2.8). Subgroup analysis showed that SGARAs as a group significantly improved OS in ECOG=1 population, although insignificant results were found in these patients from included studies.

Conclusions

SGARAs combined with ADT significantly improved OS when compared with ADT alone in high-risk nmCRPC patients. Darolutamide may not only provide best OS but also have the most favorable safety profile among the included SGARAs in high-risk nmCRPC patients.

SUBMITTER: Mulati Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8555656 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Plasma androgen receptor (AR) gain identifies metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with worse outcome on abiraterone/enzalutamide, but its relevance in the context of taxane chemotherapy is unknown. We aimed to evaluate whether docetaxel is active regardless of plasma AR and to perform an exploratory analysis to compare docetaxel with abiraterone/enzalutamide. This multi-institutional study was a pooled analysis of AR status, determined by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction, on pretreatment plasma samples. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate in 163 docetaxel-treated patients. OS was significantly shorter in case of AR gain (hazard ratio [HR]=1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.08-2.39, p=0.018), but not PFS (HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.46, p=0.8) or PSA response (odds ratio=1.14, 95% CI=0.65-1.99, p=0.7). We investigated the interaction between plasma AR and treatment type after incorporating updated data from our prior study of 73 chemotherapy-naïve, abiraterone/enzalutamide-treated patients, with data from 115 first-line docetaxel patients. In an exploratory analysis of mCRPC patients receiving first-line therapies, a significant interaction was observed between plasma AR and docetaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide for OS (HR=0.16, 95% CI=0.06-0.46, p<0.001) and PFS (HR=0.31, 95% CI=0.12-0.80, p=0.02). Specifically, we reported a significant difference for OS favoring abiraterone/enzalutamide for AR-normal patients (HR=1.93, 95% CI=1.19-3.12, p=0.008) and a suggestion favoring docetaxel for AR-gained patients (HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.24-1.16, p=0.11). These data suggest that AR-normal patients should receive abiraterone/enzalutamide and AR-gained could benefit from docetaxel. This treatment selection merits prospective evaluation in a randomized trial. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated whether plasma androgen receptor (AR) predicted outcome in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with docetaxel, and we performed an exploratory analysis in patients treated with docetaxel or AR-directed drugs as first-line mCRPC therapy. We showed that plasma AR normal favored hormonal treatment, whilst plasma AR-gained patients may have had a longer response to docetaxel, suggesting that plasma AR status could be a useful treatment selection biomarker.

Project description:ImportanceNovel androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs; darolutamide, enzalutamide, and apalutamide) are standard-of-care treatments for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). However, there are sparse data comparing their clinical use and tolerability.ObjectiveTo compare clinical use and outcomes for darolutamide, enzalutamide, and apalutamide in patients with nmCRPC.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study reviewed electronic medical records from the Precision Point Specialty network of US urology practices. Eligible patients had nmCRPC and no prior novel hormonal therapy and initiated novel ARI treatment between August 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022.ExposuresPatients were prescribed darolutamide, enzalutamide, or apalutamide as their first novel ARI for nmCRPC.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was a composite of 2 end points, treatment discontinuation and progression to metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), whichever occurred first. Both end points were also assessed separately.ResultsAll 870 patients meeting eligibility criteria were included (362 receiving darolutamide [41.6%]; 382, enzalutamide [43.9%]; 126, apalutamide [14.5%]); mean (SD) age was 78.8 (8.7) years. Self-reported race was Black or African American in 187 patients (21.5%), White in 585 (67.2%), and other or unknown in 98 (11.3%). The darolutamide cohort had lower proportions of patients with a composite end point event (134 [37.0%] vs 201 [52.6%] for enzalutamide and 66 [52.4%] for apalutamide), discontinuation (110 [30.4%] for darolutamide vs 156 [40.8%] for enzalutamide and 58 [46.0%] for apalutamide), and progression to mCRPC (64 [17.7%] for darolutamide vs 108 [28.3%] for enzalutamide and 35 [27.8%] for apalutamide) during the study period. After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients receiving darolutamide had a lower risk of a composite end point event compared with enzalutamide (risk reduction, 33.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.84]) and apalutamide (risk reduction, 35.1%; HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.48-0.88]). Similarly, patients receiving darolutamide had a lower risk of discontinuation compared with enzalutamide (risk reduction, 27.4%; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]) and apalutamide (risk reduction, 39.1%; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.44-0.85]) and a lower risk of progression to mCRPC compared with enzalutamide (risk reduction, 40.6%; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.82]) and apalutamide (risk reduction, 35.3%; HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.42-0.99]). There was no difference between enzalutamide and apalutamide treatment across outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this large cohort study of patients with nmCRPC treated with novel ARIs, results suggest better tolerability for darolutamide compared with enzalutamide and apalutamide, which may be associated with a clinical effectiveness advantage. Comparative clinical studies are needed to guide treatment decisions in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials.

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).