Comparison of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer | Oncology | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Comparison of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate CancerA Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Educational Objective:
To compare the safety and effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What are the most effective systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer?

Findings  This network meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials including 7287 patients noted that, combined with androgen-deprivation therapy, treatments associated with significantly improved overall survival included abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, and docetaxel; treatments associated with significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival included enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, and docetaxel, ordered from the agent with the greatest to least effectiveness according to the results of clinical trials. Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased serious adverse events, abiraterone with slightly increased serious adverse events, and other treatments with no increase in serious adverse events.

Meaning  This network meta-analysis suggests that abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest and most consistent overall survival benefits with relatively low serious adverse event risks among metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer treatments.

Abstract

Importance  Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs.

Objective  To compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC.

Data Sources  Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central), regulatory documents (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union clinical trials register) were searched from inception through November 5, 2019.

Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Synthesis  Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials evaluating the addition of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of mCSPC. Two investigators independently performed screening. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. A Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. Relative effects of competing treatments were assessed by bayesian network meta-analysis and survival models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results  Seven trials with 7287 patients comparing 6 treatments (abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, docetaxel, enzalutamide, standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen, and placebo/no treatment) were identified. Ordered from the most to the least effective determined by results of clinical trials, treatments associated with improved overall survival when added to ADT included abiraterone acetate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-0.70), apalutamide (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and docetaxel (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89); treatments associated with improved radiographic progression-free survival when added to ADT included enzalutamide (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50), apalutamide (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.60), abiraterone acetate (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58), and docetaxel (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.74). Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased SAEs (odds ratio, 23.72; 95% CI, 13.37-45.15), abiraterone acetate with slightly increased SAEs (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), and other treatments with no significant increase in SAEs. Risk of bias was noted for 4 trials with open-label design, 3 trials with missing data, and 2 trials with potential unprespecified analyses.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this network meta-analysis, as add-on treatments to ADT, abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest overall survival benefits with relatively low SAE risks. Although enzalutamide may improve radiographic progression-free survival to the greatest extent, longer follow-up is needed to examine the overall survival benefits associated with enzalutamide.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: October 8, 2020.

Published Online: January 14, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6973

Corresponding Author: Otis Brawley, MD, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 1550 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD 21231 (otis.brawley@jhu.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Wang had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Wang, Paller, Hong, Brawley.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Wang, Hong, De Felice, Alexander.

Drafting of the manuscript: Wang, De Felice, Brawley.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wang, Paller, Hong, Alexander.

Statistical analysis: Wang, Hong.

Obtained funding: Wang.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Paller, Brawley.

Supervision: Alexander, Brawley.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Wang reported receiving grants from the Dyar Memorial Fund and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Alexander reported Dr Alexander is past chair of US Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; has served as a paid adviser to IQVIA; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and is a member of OptumRx's National P&T Committee. Dr Brawley reported receiving grants from the US National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Genentech outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Dyar Memorial Fund and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation 2020 Predoctoral Fellowship in Health Outcomes Research (Dr Wang).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
US Cancer Society. Prostate at a glance. Estimated new cases, 2020. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/cancer-site/Prostate
2.
Cancer Stat Facts SEER. Prostate cancer. National Cancer Institute. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
3.
Alpajaro  SIR , Harris  JAK , Evans  CP .  Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: a review of current and emerging medical therapies.   Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(1):16-23. doi:10.1038/s41391-018-0078-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Sartor  O , de Bono  JS .  Metastatic prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):645-657. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1701695 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Sweeney  CJ , Chen  YH , Carducci  M ,  et al.  Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone–sensitive prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):737-746. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1503747 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
James  ND , Sydes  MR , Clarke  NW ,  et al; STAMPEDE investigators.  Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial.   Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1163-1177. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01037-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Fizazi  K , Tran  N , Fein  L ,  et al; LATITUDE Investigators.  Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2017;377(4):352-360. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1704174 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
James  ND , de Bono  JS , Spears  MR ,  et al; STAMPEDE Investigators.  Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy.   N Engl J Med. 2017;377(4):338-351. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1702900 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Fizazi  K , Tran  N , Fein  L ,  et al.  Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.   Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(5):686-700. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30082-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Hoyle  AP , Ali  A , James  ND ,  et al; STAMPEDE Investigators.  Abiraterone in “high-” and “low-risk” metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.   Eur Urol. 2019;76():719-728. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Armstrong  AJ , Szmulewitz  RZ , Petrylak  DP ,  et al.  ARCHES: a randomized, phase III study of androgen deprivation therapy with enzalutamide or placebo in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.   J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(32):2974-2986. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00799 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Chi  KN , Agarwal  N , Bjartell  A ,  et al; TITAN Investigators.  Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(1):13-24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903307 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
European Association of Oncology. Guidelines on prostate cancer. Full-text guidelines. Published 2020. Accessed May 28, 2020 https://uroweb.org/guidelin.e/prostate-cancer/
14.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate cancer: version 2.2020. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
15.
US Department of Veterans Affairs National Acquisition Center (CCST). Published 2019. Accessed October 27, 2019. https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/nac/Pharma/List
16.
Moher  D , Liberati  A , Tetzlaff  J , Altman  DG ; PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.   PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Hutton  B , Salanti  G , Caldwell  DM ,  et al.  The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.   Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-784. doi:10.7326/M14-2385 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Sterne  JAC , Savović  J , Page  MJ ,  et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Sofia Dias  AEA , Welton NJ, Jansen JP, Sutton AJ. Network Meta-Analysis for Decision-Making (Statistics in Practice). Wiley; 2018.
20.
Franchini  AJ , Dias  S , Ades  AE , Jansen  JP , Welton  NJ .  Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials.   Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):142-160. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1049 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Rohatigi  A . WebPlotDigitizer, version 4.3. Published 2020. Accessed October 23, 2020. https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer
22.
Guyot  P , Ades  AE , Ouwens  MJ , Welton  NJ .  Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Wei  Y , Royston  P .  Reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan-Meier curves.   Stata J. 2017;17(4):786-802. doi:10.1177/1536867X1801700402 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Jansen  JP .  Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:61. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-61 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Spiegelhalter  DJ , Best  N , Carlin  BP , Linde  A .  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion).   J Royal Stat Soc. 2002;64:583-639. doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00353 Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Van Valkenhoef  G , Kuiper  J . gemtc: network meta-analysis using bayesian methods. R package, version 0.8-4. Updated August 10, 2020. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gemtc
27.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Published 2019. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://www.R-project.org/
28.
Lunn  DJ , Thomas  A , Best  N , Spiegelhalter  D .  WinBUGS: a bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility.   Stat Comput. 2000;10:325-337. doi:10.1023/A:1008929526011Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Dias  S , Welton  NJ , Caldwell  DM , Ades  AE .  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.   Stat Med. 2010;29(7-8):932-944. doi:10.1002/sim.3767 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Van Valkenhoef  G , Dias  S , Ades  AE , Welton  NJ .  Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis.   Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):80-93. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1167 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Gelman  A.  Inference and monitoring convergence. In:  Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996.
32.
Brooks  S , Gelman  A .  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations.   J Comput Graph Stat. 1998;7:434-455.Google Scholar
33.
Sydes  MR , Spears  MR , Mason  MD ,  et al; STAMPEDE Investigators.  Adding abiraterone or docetaxel to long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer: directly randomised data from the STAMPEDE multi-arm, multi-stage platform protocol.   Ann Oncol. 2018;29(5):1235-1248. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy072 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Gravis  G , Fizazi  K , Joly  F ,  et al.  Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.   Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(2):149-158. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70560-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Davis  ID , Martin  AJ , Stockler  MR ,  et al; ENZAMET Trial Investigators and the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group.  Enzalutamide with standard first-line therapy in metastatic prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(2):121-131. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903835 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Kyriakopoulos  CE , Chen  YH , Carducci  MA ,  et al.  Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival analysis of the randomized phase III E3805 CHAARTED trial.   J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(11):1080-1087. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.75.3657 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Morgans  AK , Chen  YH , Sweeney  CJ ,  et al.  Quality of life during treatment with chemohormonal therapy: analysis of E3805 chemohormonal androgen ablation randomized trial in prostate cancer.   J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(11):1088-1095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.75.3335 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Gravis  G , Boher  JM , Joly  F ,  et al; GETUG.  Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel versus ADT alone in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer: impact of metastatic burden and long-term survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 GETUG-AFU15 Trial.   Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):256-262. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Chi  KN , Protheroe  A , Rodríguez-Antolín  A ,  et al.  Patient-reported outcomes following abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): an international, randomised phase 3 trial.   Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(2):194-206. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30911-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Fukasawa  S , Suzuki  H , Kawaguchi  K ,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer: a subgroup analysis of LATITUDE, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study.   Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48(11):1012-1021. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyy129 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Agarwal  N , McQuarrie  K , Bjartell  A ,  et al; TITAN investigators.  Health-related quality of life after apalutamide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (TITAN): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.   Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(11):1518-1530. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30620-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Clarke  NW , Ali  A , Ingleby  FC ,  et al.  Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial.   Ann Oncol. 2019;30(12):1992-2003. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz396 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Vale  CL , Fisher  DJ , White  IR ,  et al.  What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? a STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis.   Ann Oncol. 2018;29(5):1249-1257. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy071 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Sathianathen  NJ , Koschel  S , Thangasamy  IA ,  et al.  Indirect comparisons of efficacy between combination approaches in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.   Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):365-372. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Wang  L , Hong  H , Paller  C , Brawley  O , Li  T . I s current trial data sharing status conducive for evidence generation for personalized medicine: a failed attempt to conduct an individual pattient trial data network meta-analysis.   Drugs Generics Org Pract. 2020;23(suppl 1):S139-S140. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.345 Google Scholar
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close