Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/22000
Title: Indirect Comparisons of Efficacy between Combination Approaches in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Authors: Sathianathen, Niranjan J;Koschel, Samantha;Thangasamy, Isaac A;Teh, Jiasian;Alghazo, Omar;Butcher, Georgiana;Howard, Harriet;Kapoor, Jada;Lawrentschuk, Nathan;Siva, Shankar;Azad, Arun;Tran, Ben;Bolton, Damien M;Murphy, Declan G
Affiliation: University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Department of Surgery, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: 31-Oct-2019
EDate: 2019-10-31
Citation: European urology 2019; online first: 31 October
Abstract: 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. To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to characterise the comparative efficacy of combination approaches in men with mHSPC. 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. 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. 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. 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.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/22000
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.004
ORCID: 0000-0002-3710-014X
0000-0001-8553-5618
0000-0002-5145-6783
PubMed URL: 31679970
Type: Journal Article
Review
Subjects: Androgen receptor-targeted therapies
Chemotherapy
Hormone sensitive
Meta-analysis
Metastasis
Prostate cancer
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.