Amanda E Hird1, Diana E Magee1, Bimal Bhindi2, Xiang Y Ye3, Thenappan Chandrasekar4, Hanan Goldberg5, Laurence Klotz6, Neil Fleshner5, Raj Satkunasivam7, Zachary Klaassen8, Christopher J D Wallis9. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. MiCare Research Centre, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Urology and Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. 8. Division of Urology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA; Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, GA. 9. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: wallis.cjd@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), we used network meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) and stratified class-level meta-analysis to identify subgroups with particular benefit from NSAAs with androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of phase III parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult men with nmCRPC. Primary outcome was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), and rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs). We assessed class-level effects using random effects models; effect modification owing to subgroup effects using random-effects models to pool study-level differences; and comparative outcomes between agents using fixed-effect network models in a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled MFS, PSA-PFS, and OS were significantly greater with NSAA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.41; HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.13; and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, respectively). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a greater benefit with NSAAs in men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38) versus 1 (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56; P = .005), but no difference owing to PSA doubling time (P = .43) or use of osteoclast targeting therapy (P = .77). Bayesian analysis showed apalutamide and enzalutamide had a 56% and 44% likelihood of maximizing MFS, respectively, with subgroup analysis demonstrating these agents were preferred regardless of PSA doubling time and performance status. There was a 44%, 41%, and 15% likelihood that apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide offered the greatest OS benefit, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 AEs were more common with NSAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71) and there was a 61% chance that darolutamide was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: NSAAs improve survival in high-risk nmCRPC. Apalutamide and enzalutamide may result in improved oncologic outcomes. Darolutamide may result in fewer AEs. Phase IV data are needed to validate these findings.
BACKGROUND: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), we used network meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) and stratified class-level meta-analysis to identify subgroups with particular benefit from NSAAs with androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of phase III parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult men with nmCRPC. Primary outcome was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), and rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs). We assessed class-level effects using random effects models; effect modification owing to subgroup effects using random-effects models to pool study-level differences; and comparative outcomes between agents using fixed-effect network models in a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled MFS, PSA-PFS, and OS were significantly greater with NSAA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.41; HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.13; and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, respectively). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a greater benefit with NSAAs in men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38) versus 1 (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56; P = .005), but no difference owing to PSA doubling time (P = .43) or use of osteoclast targeting therapy (P = .77). Bayesian analysis showed apalutamide and enzalutamide had a 56% and 44% likelihood of maximizing MFS, respectively, with subgroup analysis demonstrating these agents were preferred regardless of PSA doubling time and performance status. There was a 44%, 41%, and 15% likelihood that apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide offered the greatest OS benefit, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 AEs were more common with NSAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71) and there was a 61% chance that darolutamide was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: NSAAs improve survival in high-risk nmCRPC. Apalutamide and enzalutamide may result in improved oncologic outcomes. Darolutamide may result in fewer AEs. Phase IV data are needed to validate these findings.
Authors: Flavio A Cadegiani; Ricardo A Zimerman; Daniel N Fonseca; Michael N Correia; Marcio P Muller; Diego Leonardo Bet; Marcio Rafael Slaviero; Ivan Zardo; Paulo Roberto Benites; Renan N Barros; Raysa W Paulain; Dirce C Onety; Karla Cristina P Israel; Carlos Gustavo Wambier; Andy Goren Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-12-25
Authors: Lin Wang; Channing Paller; Hwanhee Hong; Lori Rosman; Anthony De Felice; Otis Brawley; G Caleb Alexander Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Andrea B Apolo; Rosa Nadal; Daniel M Girardi; Scot A Niglio; Lisa Ley; Lisa M Cordes; Seth M Steinberg; Olena Sierra Ortiz; Jacqueline Cadena; Carlos Diaz; Marissa Mallek; Nicole N Davarpanah; Rene Costello; Jane B Trepel; Min-Jung Lee; Maria J Merino; Mohammad Hadi Bagheri; Paul Monk; William D Figg; James L Gulley; Piyush K Agarwal; Vladimir Valera; Heather J Chalfin; Jennifer Jones; Howard Streicher; John J Wright; Yangmin M Ning; Howard L Parnes; William L Dahut; Donald P Bottaro; Primo N Lara; Biren Saraiya; Sumanta K Pal; Mark N Stein; Amir Mortazavi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric Powers; Georgia Sofia Karachaliou; Chester Kao; Michael R Harrison; Christopher J Hoimes; Daniel J George; Andrew J Armstrong; Tian Zhang Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: Keiichiro Mori; Hadi Mostafaei; Benjamin Pradere; Reza Sari Motlagh; Fahad Quhal; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Victor M Schuettfort; Mohammad Abufaraj; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Takahiro Kimura; Shin Egawa; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 3.402