These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative efficacy of apalutamide darolutamide and enzalutamide for treatment of non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
    Author: Kumar J, Jazayeri SB, Gautam S, Norez D, Alam MU, Tanneru K, Bazargani S, Costa J, Bandyk M, Ganapathi HP, Koochekpour S, Balaji KC.
    Journal: Urol Oncol; 2020 Nov; 38(11):826-834. PubMed ID: 32605736.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Studies using apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide have shown improved metastasis free survival (MFS) rates, leaving clinicians with a dilemma of choosing one over the other, for nonmetastatic castration recurrent prostate cancer (nmCRPC). We performed a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect comparison of oncologic outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of these medications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases, for studies reporting apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide until January 25, 2020. Results were input into an EndNote library, and data were extracted into a predefined template. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as radiologic progression or death. Network meta-analysis was done using R and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan v. 5. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value was used to provide rank probabilities. RESULTS: We found 3 studies reporting results for apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. MFS was significantly lower in patients receiving darolutamide compared to both apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.97) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93). MFS was similar for enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.28). In PFS, apalutamide showed a slightly higher rate compared to darolutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.99). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between any of the medications. There was no statistically significant difference in AEs profile of the 3 medications. However, darolutamide had the highest SUCRA value and probability of being the most preferred medication based on AEs profile. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide and apalutamide had similar and higher MFS rate in indirect comparison with darolutamide. In cases where AEs are concerning, darolutamide might be the preferred agent.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]