Efficacy and safety evaluation of androgen deprivation therapy-based combinations for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

期刊论文
发表日期：

2024年9月2日

查看全文

Tianqi Wang,
Xiaoyu Wang,
Guixin Ding,
Hongquan Liu,
Xiaohong Ma,
Jian Ma,
Yuanshan Cui,
Jitao Wu

摘要

Background

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety profiles of current combination therapies based on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the heterogeneous population of individuals with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC).

Methods

We retrieved pertinent literature from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases. The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023453853) for transparency.

Results

Our analysis included 20 RCTs involving 14,995 patients, evaluating 15 ADT-based combinations, including systemic therapies, radiotherapy and surgery. In the overall population, the darolutamide triplet (DARO + docetaxel + ADT) demonstrated comparable overall survival (OS) benefits to prostatectomy/radical local therapy (RLT) plus ADT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–1.57). Additionally, the enzalutamide (ENZ) triplet (ENZ + DOC + ADT) appeared to confer the best progression-free survival (HR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.27–0.43). Subgroup analysis based on metastatic burden indicated that RLT plus ADT had the best OS performance in patients with low burden, while the DARO triplet was associated with the best OS in patients with high burden. Regarding adverse events (AEs), the addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) agents to ADT led to an increased incidence of severe AEs, while the addition of DOC to the ARPI doublet did not appear to elevate the exposure-adjusted incidence rates.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that combined treatments result in better survival outcomes than does ADT alone. In the current landscape of systemic therapy, the significance of local therapy should not be underestimated, and therapeutic decisions should be tailored with meticulous consideration of clinical heterogeneity among patients.