OBJECTIVE: Recently, novel endothelins like zibotentan and atrasentan and other novel taxanes have been introduced to treat prostate cancer. This study reviews zibotentan in the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and derives a more precise estimate of their effect of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers searched and extracted data of the published trials and review articles on zibotentan for prostate cancer using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register database. We used hazard ratios (HRs) to assess the effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or time to PSA progression (TTP), and relative risk (RR) for the different types of toxicity. Four randomized controlled trials were identified. RESULTS: The pooled HR showed that zibotentan did not improve OS and PFS (HR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.82-1.03, p = 0.161, HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.89-1.08, p = 0.714). Zibotentan had modest benefits on TTP (HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.91-0.97, p = 0.001). In addition, zibotentan led to more peripheral edema, anemia, cardiac failure and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Our study concludes that zibotentan is not an attractive option for CRPC patients. However, additional studies on other novel therapies are needed to improve patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Recently, novel endothelins like zibotentan and atrasentan and other novel taxanes have been introduced to treat prostate cancer. This study reviews zibotentan in the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and derives a more precise estimate of their effect of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers searched and extracted data of the published trials and review articles on zibotentan for prostate cancer using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register database. We used hazard ratios (HRs) to assess the effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or time to PSA progression (TTP), and relative risk (RR) for the different types of toxicity. Four randomized controlled trials were identified. RESULTS: The pooled HR showed that zibotentan did not improve OS and PFS (HR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.82-1.03, p = 0.161, HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.89-1.08, p = 0.714). Zibotentan had modest benefits on TTP (HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.91-0.97, p = 0.001). In addition, zibotentan led to more peripheral edema, anemia, cardiac failure and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Our study concludes that zibotentan is not an attractive option for CRPC patients. However, additional studies on other novel therapies are needed to improve patient outcomes.