Melania Rivano1, Luca Cancanelli2, Lorenzo Di Spazio3, Daniele Mengato4, Marco Chiumente5, Andrea Messori6. 1. Hospital Pharmacy Department, Binaghi Hospital, Via Is Guadazzonis, 2, 09126, Cagliari, Italy. 2. Hospital Pharmacy Department, Azienda Ulss 2 Marca Trevigiana, Via Ospedale, 16, Castelfranco Veneto, 31033, Treviso, Italy. 3. Hospital Pharmacy Department, S.Chiara Hospital, Largo Medaglie d'oro, 38122, Trento, Italy. 4. Hospital Pharmacy Department, Azienda Ospedale - Università of Padova, via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padua, Italy. 5. Direzione Scientifica, Società Italiana Di Farmacia Clinica E Terapia (SIFaCT), Milan, Italia. 6. HTA Unit, Regione Toscana, via Alderotti 26/N, 50135, Florence, Italy. andrea.messori.it@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In recent years, new treatments have been approved for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0CRPC). Because direct comparisons between these treatments are not available to guide treatment decisions, indirect comparisons can be of interest. METHODS: Our analysis evaluated second-generation hormone treatments proposed for M0CRPC. We searched multiple databases for articles published between 2010 and 2022. Phase-III clinical trials that studied these agents in M0CRPC patients were eligible. Among these, we included trials reporting overall survival (OS) through Kaplan-Meier curves. We performed the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier graphs, according to the Shiny method, to indirectly compare the efficacy of the different agents. Indirect comparisons included testing for equivalence according to FDA criteria. Confidence intervals (CI) were 95% in all analyses except equivalence testing, where 90%CIs were used. RESULTS: Three studies met these inclusion criteria. Apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.88), darolutamide (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.58-0.84), and enzalutamide (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.65-0.90) were all significantly more effective than the placebo. Our results showed no difference in OS between any of these three agents, and in testing for equivalence, our estimates of HR met the 0.75-1.33 level. CONCLUSIONS: While the Shiny method has confirmed its validity in reconstructing individual patient data, our indirect comparisons based on mature OS demonstrated similar efficacy and substantial equivalence among these three second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors.
INTRODUCTION: In recent years, new treatments have been approved for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0CRPC). Because direct comparisons between these treatments are not available to guide treatment decisions, indirect comparisons can be of interest. METHODS: Our analysis evaluated second-generation hormone treatments proposed for M0CRPC. We searched multiple databases for articles published between 2010 and 2022. Phase-III clinical trials that studied these agents in M0CRPC patients were eligible. Among these, we included trials reporting overall survival (OS) through Kaplan-Meier curves. We performed the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier graphs, according to the Shiny method, to indirectly compare the efficacy of the different agents. Indirect comparisons included testing for equivalence according to FDA criteria. Confidence intervals (CI) were 95% in all analyses except equivalence testing, where 90%CIs were used. RESULTS: Three studies met these inclusion criteria. Apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.88), darolutamide (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.58-0.84), and enzalutamide (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.65-0.90) were all significantly more effective than the placebo. Our results showed no difference in OS between any of these three agents, and in testing for equivalence, our estimates of HR met the 0.75-1.33 level. CONCLUSIONS: While the Shiny method has confirmed its validity in reconstructing individual patient data, our indirect comparisons based on mature OS demonstrated similar efficacy and substantial equivalence among these three second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors.
Authors: Kim N Chi; Neeraj Agarwal; Anders Bjartell; Byung Ha Chung; Andrea J Pereira de Santana Gomes; Robert Given; Álvaro Juárez Soto; Axel S Merseburger; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Hirotsugu Uemura; Dingwei Ye; Kris Deprince; Vahid Naini; Jinhui Li; Shinta Cheng; Margaret K Yu; Ke Zhang; Julie S Larsen; Sharon McCarthy; Simon Chowdhury Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Fred Saad; Simon Chowdhury; Stéphane Oudard; Boris A Hadaschik; Julie N Graff; David Olmos; Paul N Mainwaring; Ji Youl Lee; Hiroji Uemura; Angela Lopez-Gitlitz; Géralyn C Trudel; Byron M Espina; Youyi Shu; Youn C Park; Wayne R Rackoff; Margaret K Yu; Eric J Small Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maha Hussain; Karim Fizazi; Fred Saad; Per Rathenborg; Neal Shore; Ubirajara Ferreira; Petro Ivashchenko; Eren Demirhan; Katharina Modelska; Andrew Krivoshik; Cora N Sternberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Fred Saad; Simon Chowdhury; Stéphane Oudard; Boris A Hadaschik; Julie N Graff; David Olmos; Paul N Mainwaring; Ji Youl Lee; Hiroji Uemura; Peter De Porre; Andressa A Smith; Sabine D Brookman-May; Susan Li; Ke Zhang; Brendan Rooney; Angela Lopez-Gitlitz; Eric J Small Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Karim Fizazi; Neal Shore; Teuvo L Tammela; Albertas Ulys; Egils Vjaters; Sergey Polyakov; Mindaugas Jievaltas; Murilo Luz; Boris Alekseev; Iris Kuss; Christian Kappeler; Amir Snapir; Toni Sarapohja; Matthew R Smith Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Andrew J Armstrong; Russell Z Szmulewitz; Daniel P Petrylak; Jeffrey Holzbeierlein; Arnauld Villers; Arun Azad; Antonio Alcaraz; Boris Alekseev; Taro Iguchi; Neal D Shore; Brad Rosbrook; Jennifer Sugg; Benoit Baron; Lucy Chen; Arnulf Stenzl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 44.544