INTRODUCTION: Studies using apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide have shown improved metastasis free survival (MFS) rates, leaving clinicians with a dilemma of choosing one over the other, for nonmetastatic castration recurrent prostate cancer (nmCRPC). We performed a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect comparison of oncologic outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of these medications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases, for studies reporting apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide until January 25, 2020. Results were input into an EndNote library, and data were extracted into a predefined template. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as radiologic progression or death. Network meta-analysis was done using R and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan v. 5. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value was used to provide rank probabilities. RESULTS: We found 3 studies reporting results for apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. MFS was significantly lower in patients receiving darolutamide compared to both apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.97) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93). MFS was similar for enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.28). In PFS, apalutamide showed a slightly higher rate compared to darolutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.99). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between any of the medications. There was no statistically significant difference in AEs profile of the 3 medications. However, darolutamide had the highest SUCRA value and probability of being the most preferred medication based on AEs profile. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide and apalutamide had similar and higher MFS rate in indirect comparison with darolutamide. In cases where AEs are concerning, darolutamide might be the preferred agent.
INTRODUCTION: Studies using apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide have shown improved metastasis free survival (MFS) rates, leaving clinicians with a dilemma of choosing one over the other, for nonmetastatic castration recurrent prostate cancer (nmCRPC). We performed a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect comparison of oncologic outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of these medications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases, for studies reporting apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide until January 25, 2020. Results were input into an EndNote library, and data were extracted into a predefined template. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as radiologic progression or death. Network meta-analysis was done using R and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan v. 5. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value was used to provide rank probabilities. RESULTS: We found 3 studies reporting results for apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. MFS was significantly lower in patients receiving darolutamide compared to both apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.97) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93). MFS was similar for enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.28). In PFS, apalutamide showed a slightly higher rate compared to darolutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.99). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between any of the medications. There was no statistically significant difference in AEs profile of the 3 medications. However, darolutamide had the highest SUCRA value and probability of being the most preferred medication based on AEs profile. CONCLUSION:Enzalutamide and apalutamide had similar and higher MFS rate in indirect comparison with darolutamide. In cases where AEs are concerning, darolutamide might be the preferred agent.
Authors: Melania Rivano; Luca Cancanelli; Lorenzo Di Spazio; Daniele Mengato; Marco Chiumente; Andrea Messori Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 3.661
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: Jatinder Kumar; Muhammad Umar Alam; Seyed Behzad Jazayeri; Karthik Tanneru; Soroush Bazargani; Charu Shastri; Shiva Gautam; Shahriar Koochekpour; Sanjeev Shukla; Mark Bandyk; Joseph Costa; K C Balaji Journal: Indian J Urol Date: 2022-07-01
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
Authors: Martina Maggi; Stefano Salciccia; Francesco Del Giudice; Gian Maria Busetto; Ugo G Falagario; Giuseppe Carrieri; Matteo Ferro; Angelo Porreca; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Vittorio Fasulo; Viviana Frantellizzi; Giuseppe De Vincentis; Ettore De Berardinis; Alessandro Sciarra Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 6.244