• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: network meta-analysis

K. Mori, H. Mostafaei, R. Sari Motlagh, B. Pradere, F. Quhal, E. Laukhtina, VM. Schuettfort, G. Kramer, M. Abufaraj, PI. Karakiewicz, T. Kimura, S. Egawa, SF. Shariat

. 2022 ; 129 (4) : 423-433. [pub] 20210721

Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, přehledy, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22018912

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis extension statement for network meta-analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible. RESULTS: Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta-analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73-0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67-0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65-0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78-0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63-0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78-0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73-0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low-volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22018912
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220804135159.0
007      
ta
008      
220720s2022 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1111/bju.15507 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34171173
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan $1 https://orcid.org/0000000261476569
245    10
$a Systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: network meta-analysis / $c K. Mori, H. Mostafaei, R. Sari Motlagh, B. Pradere, F. Quhal, E. Laukhtina, VM. Schuettfort, G. Kramer, M. Abufaraj, PI. Karakiewicz, T. Kimura, S. Egawa, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis extension statement for network meta-analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible. RESULTS: Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta-analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73-0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67-0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65-0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78-0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63-0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78-0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73-0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low-volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.
650    12
$a antagonisté androgenů $x škodlivé účinky $7 D000726
650    _2
$a antagonisté androgenních receptorů $7 D059002
650    _2
$a docetaxel $x terapeutické užití $7 D000077143
650    _2
$a hormony $7 D006728
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a síťová metaanalýza $7 D000071076
650    12
$a nádory prostaty $x patologie $7 D011471
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Mostafaei, Hadi $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran $1 https://orcid.org/0000000155961771
700    1_
$a Sari Motlagh, Reza $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/0000000238199911
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Quhal, Fahad $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
700    1_
$a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000289530272
700    1_
$a Schuettfort, Victor M $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Kramer, Gero $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Abufaraj, Mohammad $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan $1 https://orcid.org/0000000266036319
700    1_
$a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
700    1_
$a Kimura, Takahiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Egawa, Shin $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, Netherlands
773    0_
$w MED00011371 $t BJU international $x 1464-410X $g Roč. 129, č. 4 (2022), s. 423-433
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34171173 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220804135152 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1822483 $s 1170155
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 129 $c 4 $d 423-433 $e 20210721 $i 1464-410X $m BJU international $n BJU Int $x MED00011371
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220720

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace