Systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel.Methods
Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis extension statement for network meta-analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible.Results
Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta-analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73-0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67-0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65-0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78-0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63-0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78-0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73-0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low-volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS.Conclusions
All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.
SUBMITTER: Mori K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9291853 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of current systemic combination therapies for patients with mHSPC and help select candidates for optimal treatment. Methods: Databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trial.gov were searched for eligible studies. Direct and network meta-analysis were conducted to compare various systemic combination therapies and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was generated for treatment ranking. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the extent of metastasis. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among the effective treatments. Results: Ten trials with 16 publications were included in this network meta-analysis. Direct and network meta-analysis consistently suggested that androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide could significantly improve overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) compared to ADT alone in men with mHSPC. SUCRA analysis demonstrated the superiority of ADT plus abiraterone or enzalutamide over other therapies. Subgroup analyses indicated that additional abiraterone to ADT had the highest ranking in patients with high-volume diseases or visceral metastases and enzalutamide plus ADT outperformed other treatments in patients with low-volume diseases or without visceral metastases. Different combination therapies had variable AE profiles and ADT in addition with docetaxel or abiraterone had the highest risk of AEs. Conclusion: ADT plus docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide were associated with significantly improved survival in patients with mHSPC. ADT plus abiraterone or enzalutamide appeared to be the most effective treatments. Clinicians should balance the efficacy, potential AEs, and disease status to select the optimal treatment.
| S-EPMC7531177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, approved first-line treatment options of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) include (1) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus one of the following: (2) docetaxel, (3) abiraterone, (4) enzalutamide, and (5) apalutamide. The high cost of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors warrants an understanding of the combinations' value by considering both efficacy and cost.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these five treatment options in mHSPC from the US payer perspective to guide treatment sequence.MethodsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of these five first-line treatment options for mHSPC using outcomes data from published literature. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Pharmaceutical Catalog. We extrapolated survival beyond closure of the trials.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisLife-years, QALYs, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter uncertainty. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 per QALY was used.ResultsCompared to ADT alone, docetaxel plus ADT provided a 0.28 QALY gain at an ICER of US$12,870 per QALY. Abiraterone plus ADT provided an additional 1.70 QALYs against docetaxel plus ADT, with an ICER of US$38,897 per QALY. Compared to abiraterone plus ADT, enzalutamide plus ADT provided an additional 0.87 QALYs at an ICER of US$509,813 per QALY. Apalutamide plus ADT was strongly dominated by enzalutamide plus ADT. Given the WTP threshold of US$100,000 per QALY, abiraterone plus ADT represented high-value health care.ConclusionsAbiraterone plus ADT is the preferred treatment option for men with mHSPC at a WTP threshold of US$100,000 per QALY.
| S-EPMC7943717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The landscape of advanced prostate cancer treatment has evolved tremendously in past decades. The treatment paradigm has shifted from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone to doublet combinations comprising ADT with docetaxel or an androgen receptor inhibitor, and now triplet therapy involving all 3 classes of agents. Robust clinical data has demonstrated survival benefits with this strategy of upfront treatment intensification. Subgroup analysis has alluded to the importance of tailoring treatment according to metastatic disease burden. However, defining the volume of disease is becoming increasingly controversial due to the advent of next generation molecular imaging. Several trials testing established agents in the castrate-resistant setting are now underway in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer patients. As the treatment milieu is enriched earlier in the disease trajectory, future studies should elucidate biomarkers to further define specific patient populations who will benefit most from treatment intensification and/or de-escalation, with what agents and for what duration.
| S-EPMC10415497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMultiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC.Data sourcesBibliographic 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 synthesisEligible 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 measuresOverall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs).ResultsSeven 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 relevanceIn 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.
| S-EPMC7809610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Recent randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of different combinations of systemic and local treatment approaches for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We compared the efficacy of these combined regimens in order to identify the optimal therapy for specific patient subgroups. Methods: The treatments were abiraterone (ABI), apalutamide (APA), docetaxel (DOC), enzalutamide (ENZ), and radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Five electronic databases were searched up to May 7, 2020 for relevant trials. The risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined for the included trials and indirect comparisons were performed using the R software. Results: In total, 10 randomized, controlled trials with 11,194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ADT + RT was superior to ADT monotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.1) and conferred a survival benefit in a subgroup of low-volume patients (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.87). Combined systemic treatments were significantly superior to ADT monotherapy in comparisons of survival and prostate-specific antigen response, including in the high-volume subgroup; meanwhile, in the low-volume subgroup only ADT + ENZ (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69) showed a significant clinical benefit. In the Gleason score <8 subgroup, all combined systemic treatments were superior to ADT monotherapy, but the results were only significant for ADT + APA (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.95) and ADT + DOC (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92). In the Gleason score ≥8 subgroup, ADT monotherapy was inferior (albeit not significantly) to combined treatments. In a ranking of performed comparisons, ADT + ENZ was the optimal regimen, although this was non-significant. Combined therapies also demonstrated superiority in quality-of-life indicators such as time to skeletal events and pain progression. Conclusion: ADT + radiotherapy led to superior outcomes in mHSPC patients with low-volume disease. While all combined systemic regimens confer a survival advantage over ADT monotherapy, the optimal treatment approach for certain mHSPC patient subgroups remains to be determined.
| S-EPMC7606969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).ObjectiveTo systematically review trials of prostate radiotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsUsing a prospective framework (framework for adaptive meta-analysis [FAME]), we prespecified methods before any trial results were known. We searched extensively for eligible trials and asked investigators when results would be available. We could then anticipate that a definitive meta-analysis of the effects of prostate radiotherapy was possible. We obtained prepublication, unpublished, and harmonised results from investigators.InterventionWe included trials that randomised men to prostate radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or ADT only.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisHazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of prostate radiotherapy on survival, progression-free survival (PFS), failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical progression, and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.Results and limitationsWe identified one ongoing (PEACE-1) and two completed (HORRAD and STAMPEDE) eligible trials. Pooled results of the latter (2126 men; 90% of those eligible) showed no overall improvement in survival (HR=0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.04, p=0.195) or PFS (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p=0.238) with prostate radiotherapy. There was an overall improvement in biochemical progression (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.82, p=0.94×10-8) and FFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84, p=0.64×10-7), equivalent to ∼10% benefit at 3yr. The effect of prostate radiotherapy varied by metastatic burden-a pattern consistent across trials and outcome measures, including survival (<5, ≥5; interaction HR=1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.94, p=0.007). There was 7% improvement in 3-yr survival in men with fewer than five bone metastases.ConclusionsProstate radiotherapy should be considered for men with mHSPC with a low metastatic burden.Patient summaryProstate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (metastases) is usually treated with hormone therapy. In men with fewer than five bone metastases, addition of prostate radiotherapy helped them live longer and should be considered.
| S-EPMC6575150 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9982744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the US healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon.MethodsWe built a partitioned survival model based on a network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials with 7287 patients aged 36 to 94 years between 2004 and 2018 to predict patient health trajectories by treatment. We tested parameter uncertainties with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule and adopted generic drug prices when available. We measured cost-effectiveness by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe mean costs were approximately $392 000 with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and approximately $415 000, $464 000, $597 000, and $959 000 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 3.38 with ADT alone and 3.92, 4.76, 3.92, and 5.01 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. As add-on therapy to ADT, docetaxel had an ICER of $42 069 per QALY over ADT alone; abiraterone acetate had an ICER of $58 814 per QALY over docetaxel; apalutamide had an ICER of $1 979 676 per QALY over abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide was dominated. At a willingness to pay below $50 000 per QALY, docetaxel plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment; at any willingness to pay between $50 000 and $200 000 per QALY, abiraterone acetate plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment.ConclusionsThese findings underscore the value of abiraterone acetate plus ADT given its relative cost-effectiveness to other systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC9844549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAndrogen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the backbone of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer since the 1940s. We assessed whether concomitant treatment with ADT plus docetaxel would result in longer overall survival than that with ADT alone.MethodsWe assigned men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to receive either ADT plus docetaxel (at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks for six cycles) or ADT alone. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that the median overall survival would be 33.3% longer among patients receiving docetaxel added to ADT early during therapy than among patients receiving ADT alone.ResultsA total of 790 patients (median age, 63 years) underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the median overall survival was 13.6 months longer with ADT plus docetaxel (combination therapy) than with ADT alone (57.6 months vs. 44.0 months; hazard ratio for death in the combination group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median time to biochemical, symptomatic, or radiographic progression was 20.2 months in the combination group, as compared with 11.7 months in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). The rate of a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.2 ng per milliliter at 12 months was 27.7% in the combination group versus 16.8% in the ADT-alone group (P<0.001). In the combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 infection with neutropenia was 2.3%, and the rate of grade 3 sensory neuropathy and of grade 3 motor neuropathy was 0.5%.ConclusionsSix cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00309985.).
| S-EPMC4562797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Our prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies. Methods:Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed. Results:We identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR)?=?0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.71], Doc (HR?=?0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87), ZA?+?Cel (HR?=?0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), ZA?+?Doc (HR?=?0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), Cel (HR?=?0.94 95% CI 0.75-1.17) and ZA (HR?=?0.90 95% CI 0.79-1.03). The effect of ZA?+?Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability). Conclusions:Uniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development.
| S-EPMC5961275 | biostudies-literature