scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Novel Hormonal Therapies for Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Update From Mature Overall Survival Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Maggi ◽  
Stefano Salciccia ◽  
Francesco Del Giudice ◽  
Gian Maria Busetto ◽  
Ugo G. Falagario ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Hormonal Therapies ◽  
Term Analysis

IntroductionTo get better insight into the management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC), in this meta-analysis and review we aimed to present an updated evaluation of the efficacy and safety of novel hormonal therapies (nHT) for M0 CRPC according to final analyses with mature overall survival (OS) and safety data.MethodsWe analyzed metastasis-free survival (MFS), OS, time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, second-line therapies data, adverse events (AEs), including all AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation of trial regimen, AEs leading to death, fatigue, dizziness, cardiovascular events, and fractures; moreover, we evaluated the impact of PSA doubling time (PSA-DT), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, use of bone-targeted therapy, lymph lodes (LN) status, and prior HT on final OS data. A comparison among the placebo arms of the included trials in terms of survival and safety profiles was assessed.ResultsAccording to the pooled analysis with updated and mature OS data, OS was significantly improved with nHT compared to placebo (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.66–0.84). nHT significantly improved OS over placebo across all pre-specified subgroups. Subgroup analysis revealed a greater OS benefit in patients with PSA-DT >6 months than ≤6 months (HR= 0.69 versus HR= 0.75), ECOG 0 than 1 (HR= 0.70 versus HR= 0.80), N1 disease than N0 (HR= 0.61 versus HR= 0.78), and in those receiving bone-targeted therapy (HR= 0.65 versus HR= 0.74), and a comparable OS by number of prior HT (HR= 0.75 versus HR= 0.76, for HT= 1 and ≥2); yet, differences between pre-specified subgroups were not significant (all p> 0.05). Overall, the nHT arm was significantly associated with higher rates of AEs, when compared with the placebo arm. The long-term analysis showed a worse safety profile with nHT than the interim analysis.ConclusionsAccording to final analyses, nHT have shown to improve OS over placebo in the setting of high-risk M0 CRPC. The long-term analysis showed a worse safety profile with nHT than the interim analysis, whit distinct profiles among different nHT. The lack of survival data regarding second-line therapies remains a major issue.

Second-Line Hormonal Therapy for Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1952-1964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Virgo ◽  
Ethan Basch ◽  
D. Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Thomas K. Oliver ◽  
R. Bryan Rumble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Radium 223 ◽  
Hormonal Therapies

Purpose ASCO provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) offer direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potential practice-changing data. This PCO addresses second-line hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naïve men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who range from being asymptomatic with only biochemical evidence of CRPC to having documented metastases but minimal symptoms. Clinical Context The treatment goal for CRPC is palliation. Despite resistance to initial androgen deprivation therapy, most men respond to second-line hormonal therapies. However, guidelines have neither addressed second-line hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic CRPC nor provided specific guidance with regard to the chemotherapy-naïve population. Recent Data Six phase III randomized controlled trials and expert consensus opinion inform this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion For men with CRPC, a castrate state should be maintained indefinitely. Second-line hormonal therapy (eg, antiandrogens, CYP17 inhibitors) may be considered in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC at high risk for metastatic disease (rapid prostate-specific antigen doubling time or velocity) but otherwise is not suggested. In patients with radiographic evidence of metastases and minimal symptoms, enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone should be offered after discussion with patients about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences. Radium-223 and sipuleucel-T also are options. No evidence provides guidance about the optimal order of hormonal therapies for CRPC beyond second-line treatment. Prostate-specific antigen testing every 4 to 6 months is reasonable for men without metastases. Routine radiographic restaging generally is not suggested but can be considered for patients at risk for metastases or who exhibit symptoms or other evidence of progression. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

scholarly journals Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yelin Mulati ◽  
Yu Fan ◽  
Wei Yu ◽  
Qian Zhang ◽  
Zhisong He
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Receptor ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Grade 3

IntroductionEnzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide have all been approved by Food and Drug Administration to treat high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) since 2018 based on interim results of several phase III clinical trials. Final analyses of long-term overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) results of these trials have been successively published recently. To help clinical practice to precisely select optimal treatment for high-risk nmCRPC patients, we performed a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the final long-term results among these medications.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for phase III clinical trial that reports OS and AEs results in nmCRPC patients published before January 30, 2021. Primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes were Time to first chemotherapy, Subsequent antineoplastic therapy rate, and AEs. Firstly, class-level effect was assessed as the second-generation androgen receptor antagonists (SGARAs) were regarded as one whole class compared with placebo through traditional meta-analysis by using Revman 5.4, then a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to give indirect comparison among SGARAs by using R 3.5.3 software. Subgroup analysis of OS was only conducted in the certain subgroups which were available in all included studies.ResultsThree eligible studies including 4,104 participants were finally selected. OS was significantly improved by the SGARAs as a class compared with placebo (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66–0.84). Darolutamide had the highest likelihood of providing best OS (p-score=0.802). SGARAs also significantly delayed the first time to chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50–0.66). Patients who received darolutamide experienced similar toxicity compared with placebo regarding AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0–1.7) and serious AEs (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.99–1.6). When compared with darolutamide, enzalutamide caused significantly higher toxicity in terms of any AEs (OR, 2.3; 95% CI,1.5–3.7) and AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.2), apalutamide caused significantly more AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.7) and serious AEs (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3–2.8). Subgroup analysis showed that SGARAs as a group significantly improved OS in ECOG=1 population, although insignificant results were found in these patients from included studies.ConclusionsSGARAs combined with ADT significantly improved OS when compared with ADT alone in high-risk nmCRPC patients. Darolutamide may not only provide best OS but also have the most favorable safety profile among the included SGARAs in high-risk nmCRPC patients.

scholarly journals Abiraterone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review of ‘real-life’ studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 305-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Marchioni ◽  
Petros Sountoulides ◽  
Maida Bada ◽  
Sebastiano Rapisarda ◽  
Cosimo De Nunzio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Real ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Real Life Setting ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Baseline Psa

Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with abiraterone acetate (AA) in chemotherapy-naïve men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the ‘real-life’ setting. Methods: Data acquisition on the outcomes of the use of AA in chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC was performed by a MEDLINE comprehensive systematic literature search using combinations of the following key words: ‘prostate cancer’, ‘metastatic’, ‘castration resistant’, ‘abiraterone’, ‘real life’, and excluding controlled clinical trials (phase II and III studies). Identification and selection of the studies was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), 12-week 50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and grade 3 and higher adverse events. Data were narratively synthesized in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Results: Within the eight identified studies that fulfilled the criteria, a total of 801 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline PSA ranged between 9.5 and 212.0 ng/ml. Most of the patients had bone metastases. Duration of treatment with AA was longer in the studies with lower baseline PSA levels. The median OS ranged between 14 and 36.4 months. The PFS, assessed according to different definitions, ranged from 3.9 to 18.5 months. A 50% PSA reduction at 12 weeks was reached by a variable percentage of patients ranging from 36.0% to 62.1%. Finally, the rate of grade 3 and higher adverse events was reported in three studies and ranged from 4.4% to 15.5%. Conclusions: Despite the high grade of heterogeneity among studies, treatment with AA seems to ensure good survival outcomes in the ‘real-life’ setting. However, prospective studies based on patients’ characteristics being more similar to ‘real-life’ patients are necessary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document