Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

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

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Review, Systematic Review

Persistent link   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.

References provided by 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

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options