Dataset Information

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of enzalutamide versus apalutamide for the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To date, the efficacy of the androgen receptor inhibitors enzalutamide and apalutamide for the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has not been compared directly in a clinical trial setting. Indirect comparisons can be used to assess relative efficacy and provide important information to guide treatment decisions. PROSPER and SPARTAN were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials in patients with nmCRPC with overall similar study designs and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison, based on the final data from the PROSPER and SPARTAN studies, we assessed the comparative efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide, both plus androgen deprivation therapy.

Methods

Using placebo as the common comparator, individual patient data from PROSPER were matched to the aggregate patient data from SPARTAN and efficacy endpoints from PROSPER were re-weighted accordingly. Patient baseline characteristics and endpoints were clinically and statistically tested to identify potential effect modifiers, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Hazard ratios for overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and time to chemotherapy (TTCx) were re-estimated for PROSPER using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of SPARTAN using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Estimated hazard ratios [95% credible interval (CrI)] for enzalutamide versus apalutamide were 0.80 (95% CrI 0.58-1.10) for OS, 0.94 (95% CrI 0.69-1.29) for MFS2, and 0.90 (95% CrI 0.63-1.29) for TTCx. Similar results were seen for sensitivity analyses conducted for OS and MFS. Bayesian probability analyses showed a 91.7% favoring enzalutamide for OS, 65.1% for MFS, and 71.4% for TTCx.

Conclusions

The results of this matching-adjusted indirect comparison of final data from PROSPER and SPARTAN indicate comparable efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide with potentially a greater probability of longer MFS, OS, and TTCx in patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide versus apalutamide.

SUBMITTER: Tombal B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9271511 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:IntroductionApalutamide and darolutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that have demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebo in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In the absence of head-to-head studies, the present study sought to indirectly compare the efficacy and tolerability between these two treatments.MethodsThis anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) used patient-level data from the phase 3, randomized, controlled SPARTAN study (apalutamide + ADT), weighted to match aggregate published data from the ARAMIS study (darolutamide + ADT) for clinically relevant baseline measures. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were estimated for efficacy endpoints: metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Odds ratios were estimated for tolerability outcomes: adverse events and serious adverse events.ResultsBefore weighting, baseline characteristics from SPARTAN versus ARAMIS were different for median PSA (7.8 vs. 9.2 ng/mL), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (23% vs. 31%), use of bone-targeted agents (10% vs. 4%), median time from initial diagnosis (94.9 vs. 85.4 months), and proportion of patients from North America (35% vs. 12%) and Europe (50% vs. 64%). After matching (n = 455), our analysis demonstrated that apalutamide + ADT had a Bayesian probability of being more effective than darolutamide + ADT for MFS [98.3%; HR 0.70 (95% CrI 0.51, 0.98)], PSA progression [~ 100%; HR 0.46 (95% CrI 0.33, 0.64)], and PFS [93.2%; HR 0.79 (95% CrI 0.59, 1.08)]. Results for OS and tolerability were similar between apalutamide + ADT and darolutamide + ADT.ConclusionThis anchored MAIC analysis of pivotal phase 3 studies in patients with nmCRPC suggests that apalutamide + ADT is more effective than darolutamide + ADT for MFS, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, with a similar OS benefit and tolerability profile.Trial registrationARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02200614; SPARTAN ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01946204.

Project description:BackgroundMen with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level are at high risk for metastasis. We hypothesized that enzalutamide, which prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, would delay metastasis in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level.MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less who were continuing androgen-deprivation therapy to receive enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival (defined as the time from randomization to radiographic progression or as the time to death without radiographic progression).ResultsA total of 1401 patients (median PSA doubling time, 3.7 months) underwent randomization. As of June 28, 2017, a total of 219 of 933 patients (23%) in the enzalutamide group had metastasis or had died, as compared with 228 of 468 (49%) in the placebo group. The median metastasis-free survival was 36.6 months in the enzalutamide group versus 14.7 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.35; P<0.001). The time to the first use of a subsequent antineoplastic therapy was longer with enzalutamide treatment than with placebo (39.6 vs. 17.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.21; P<0.001; such therapy was used in 15% vs. 48% of patients) as was the time to PSA progression (37.2 vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.07; P<0.001; progression occurred in 22% vs. 69% of patients). At the first interim analysis of overall survival, 103 patients (11%) receiving enzalutamide and 62 (13%) receiving placebo had died. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 31% of the patients receiving enzalutamide, as compared with 23% of those receiving placebo.ConclusionsAmong men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a rapidly rising PSA level, enzalutamide treatment led to a clinically meaningful and significant 71% lower risk of metastasis or death than placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924 .).

Project description:ImportanceThere is a need to identify prognostic biomarkers to guide treatment intensification in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).ObjectiveTo examine whether molecular subtypes predict response to apalutamide, using archived primary tumor samples from the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 SPARTAN trial.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, gene expression data from 233 archived samples from patients with nmCRPC enrolled in the SPARTAN trial were generated using a human exon microarray. The present analysis was conducted from May 10, 2018, to October 15, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized (2:1) to apalutamide, 240 mg/d, with androgen deprivation therapy (apalutamide+ADT) or placebo+ADT.Main outcomes and measuresPatients were stratified into high-risk and low-risk categories for developing metastases based on genomic classifier (GC) scores for high (GC >0.6) and low to average (GC≤0.6) and into basal and luminal subtypes; associations between these molecular subtypes and metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsMedian age of the 233 included patients was 73 (range, 49-91) years. A total of 116 of 233 patients (50%) in the SPARTAN biomarker subset had high GC scores. Although all patients receiving apalutamide+ADT had improved outcomes, having high GC scores was associated with the greatest improvement in MFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < .001), OS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.94; P = .03), and PFS2 (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23-0.67; P = .001) vs placebo+ADT. In total, 152 of 233 patients (65%) had the basal molecular subtype. Although there were no significant differences in MFS, PFS2, or OS between patients with the luminal vs basal subtype in the placebo+ADT arm, patients with the luminal subtype in the apalutamide+ADT arm had a significantly longer MFS (apalutamide+ADT: HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.91; P = .03; placebo+ADT: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.33-1.31; P = .23) compared with patients with basal subtype; similar trends were observed for OS (apalutamide+ADT: HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-0.98; P = .04; placebo+ADT: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.38-1.60; P = .50), and PFS2 (apalutamide+ADT: HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.22; P = .22; placebo+ADT: HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.39; P = .33). In regression analysis, the luminal-basal subtype score was significantly associated with MFS in patients receiving apalutamide+ADT (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.15-6.08; P = .02), whereas GC score was significantly associated with MFS in placebo+ADT recipients (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.02-4.27; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that the GC score and basal-luminal subtype derived from archived tumor specimens may be biomarkers of response to apalutamide+ADT in the nmCRPC setting. Although overall, the addition of apalutamide to ADT was beneficial, higher-risk and luminal subtypes appeared to benefit most. Obtaining GC scores may be useful for identifying patients for early treatment intensification with apalutamide, and basal-luminal subtyping may be a beneficial approach for patient selection for further treatment intensification in trials combining novel therapies with apalutamide.