RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We compared the effectiveness of currently available systemic therapies for high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and aimed to establish the optimal treatment regimen. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of systemic therapy in patients with high-volume mHSPC. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to indirectly compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of various systemic therapies. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (6708 participants) finally met the eligibility criteria. Compared with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, rezvilutamide (REZ) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.77], abiraterone (ABI) (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.53-0.71), apalutamide (APA) (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56-0.88), enzalutamide (ENZ) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.53-0.80), docetaxel (DOC) (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84), darolutamide (DAR) + DOC (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.62), and ABI + DOC (HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.71) significantly improved OS in patients with high-volume mHSPC. Compared with DOC, no advantages were observed for doublet therapies, including REZ, ABI, APA, and ENZ on the basis of ADT, whereas DAR + DOC (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.57-0.82) and ABI + DOC (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55-0.95) was associated with better OS. The ranking analysis showed that triplet therapy (DAR + DOC + ADT and ABI + DOC + ADT) had the greatest improvement in OS, followed by REZ + ADT. All the regimens showed improved PFS in patients with high-volume mHSPC. Compared with DOC, significant differences were detected for DAR + DOC, ABI + DOC, ENZ + DOC, REZ, and ENZ. According to the ranking analysis, triplet therapy ranked first, followed by ENZ and REZ. CONCLUSIONS: REZ + ADT were the highest ranked doublet therapy for improvement in OS of patients with high-volume mHSPC, second only to triplet therapy (DAR + DOC + ADT and ABI + DOC + ADT).
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Metaanálisis en Red , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Docetaxel , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Hormonas/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversosRESUMEN
This is a retrospective cohort study by analyzing a multi-institutional electronic medical records database in Taiwan to compare long-term effectiveness and risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with enzalutamide (ENZ) or abiraterone (AA). Patients aged 20 years and older and newly receiving androgen receptor targeted therapies ENZ or AA from September 2016 to December 2019 were included. We followed patients from initiation of therapies to the occurrence of outcomes (prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, PSA progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and MACE), death, the last clinical visit, or December 31, 2020. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to compare ENZ and AA groups for the measured outcomes. A total of 363 patients treated with either ENZ (n = 157) or AA (n = 206) were identified. The analysis found a significantly higher proportion of patients with a PSA response rate higher than 50% among those receiving ENZ than among those receiving AA (ENZ vs AA: 75.80% vs 63.59%, P = .01). However, there was no significant difference in PSA PFS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% CI 0.63-1.17) and OS (0.68: 0.41-1.14) between the use of ENZ and AA in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients. Regarding the cardiovascular (CV) safety outcome, there was a significantly lower risk of MACE in patients receiving ENZ, compared to patients receiving AA (0.20: 0.07-0.55). The findings suggest that enzalutamide may be more efficacious for PSA response and suitable for chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients with high CV risk profile.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Neoplasias de la Próstata Resistentes a la Castración , Humanos , Masculino , Nitrilos/uso terapéutico , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias de la Próstata Resistentes a la Castración/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Próstata Resistentes a la Castración/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
CONTEXT: There have been substantial changes in the management of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) over the past 5 yr, with upfront combination therapies replacing androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. A range of therapies have entered the space with no clear answer regarding their comparative efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to characterise the comparative efficacy of combination approaches in men with mHSPC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched multiple databases and abstracts of major meetings up to June 2019 for randomised trials of patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease, a combination of ADT and one (or more) of taxane-based chemotherapy, and androgen receptor-targeted therapies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and we evaluated progression-free survival as a secondary outcome. We performed subgroup analysis based on the volume of disease. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found seven trials that met our eligibility criteria using either docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide in combination with ADT. All agents in combination with ADT were shown to be superior to ADT alone; enzalutamide + ADT had the lowest absolute hazard ratio compared with ADT only (hazards ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.75), and an estimated 76.9% probability that it is the preferred treatment to prolong OS compared with other combination treatments, or with ADT alone. Enzalutamide appeared to have better OS compared with docetaxel in men with low-volume disease, but there was no difference in other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with any of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide provides a significant OS benefit when compared with ADT alone. We did not identify significant differences in OS between different combination therapies. Subtle differences between these options provide clinicians considerable flexibility when selecting options for individual patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer should be managed with upfront combination therapy instead of androgen-deprivation therapy alone. Clinicians may consider many factors during the decision-making process, and thus management should be tailored for patients individually.