Comparison of doublet and triplet therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The best choice of first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of doublet and triplet treatments for mHSPC. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central and ClinicalTrials.gov...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in oncology Vol. 13; p. 1104242
Main Authors Wang, Lei, Li, Chunxing, Zhao, Zichen, Li, Xiaojian, Tang, Chong, Guan, Zhenpeng, Sun, Feng, Gu, Jin, Li, Ningchen
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 07.03.2023
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The best choice of first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of doublet and triplet treatments for mHSPC. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through July 01, 2022. Eligible studies were phase III randomized clinical trials evaluating androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) alone, doublet therapies [ADT combined with docetaxel (DOC), novel hormonal agents (NHAs), or radiotherapy (RT)], or triplet therapies (NHA+DOC+ADT) as first-line treatments for mHSPC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and grades 3-5 adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analyses were performed based on tumor burden. The effects of competing treatments were assessed by Bayesian network meta-analysis using R software. Ten trials with 12,298 patients comparing nine treatments were included. Darolutamide (DARO) +DOC+ADT ranked best in terms of OS benefits (OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·39-0·70]), but its advantages were all statistically insignificant compared with other therapy options except for DOC+ADT (OR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·88]) and RT+ADT (OR 0·57 [95% CI 0·40-0·80]). In terms of PFS, enzalutamide(ENZA)+DOC+ADT (OR 0·32 [95% CI 0·24-0·44]) and abiraterone and prednisone (AAP) +DOC+ADT (OR 0·33 [95% CI 0·25-0·45]) ranked best. For patients with high volume disease (HVD), low volume disease (LVD), and visceral metastases, the optimal therapies were AAP+DOC+ADT (OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·33-0·83]), apalutamide+ADT (OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·26-1·05]) and DARO+DOC+ADT (OR 0·42 [95% CI 0·13-1·34]), respectively. For safety, AAP+DOC+ADT (OR 3·56 [95% CI 1·51-8·43]) ranked worst with the highest risk of grade 3-5 AEs. Triple therapies may further improve OS and PFS but may be associated with a decrease in safety. Triplet therapies could be suggested for HVD patients, while doublet combinations should still be preferred for LVD patients. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/303117_STRATEGY_20220202.pdf, identifier CRD4202303117.
Bibliography:content type line 23
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
Edited by: Dingwei Ye, Fudan University, China
These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
Reviewed by: Orazio Caffo, Santa Chiara Hospital, Italy; Enrique Gonzalez Billalabeitia, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Spain
This article was submitted to Genitourinary Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology
ISSN:2234-943X
2234-943X
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2023.1104242