Pharmacotherapy plan for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer：a network meta-analysis
- VernacularTitle:转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌药物治疗方案的网状Meta分析
- Author:
Haichi SONG
1
;
Zongwei TANG
1
;
Wanyi CHEN
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，Chongqing University Cancer Hospital，Chongqing 400030，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer;
androgen deprivation therapy;
pharmacotherapy plan;
network meta-
- From:
China Pharmacy
2024;35(1):84-89
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To determine the optimal therapeutic plan for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer （mHSPC）， and to provide reference for clinical decision-making. METHODS Retrieved from Medline， Embase， BIOSIS preview， the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials. gov systematically， randomized controlled trials about mHSPC therapy， with overall survival （OS） and radiographic progression-free survival （rPFS） as efficacy outcomes and the incidence of serious adverse events （SAEs） as safety outcome， were collected during the inception-Mar. 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature， extracted data， and evaluated the risk of bias for the included study before conducting a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS Eight studies with 9 437 patients were finally included. The effectiveness and safety of 7 therapy plans were compared [abiraterone acetate， apalutamide， darolutamide+docetaxel， docetaxel， enzalutamide， standard non-steroidal antiandrogen （SNA） in addition to ADT， and ADT alone]. In terms of efficacy index， the most beneficial regimen （except for ADT+SNA） for OS was ADT+darolutamide+docetaxel （HR＝0.54， 95%CI of 0.44-0.66）， followed by ADT+abiraterone acetate （HR＝0.64，95%CI of 0.57- 0.71）， apalutamide （HR＝0.65， 95%CI of 0.53-0.79）， enzalutamide （HR＝0.66， 95%CI of 0.53-0.82）； the least beneficial regimen for OS was ADT+docetaxel （HR＝0.79， 95%CI of 0.71-0.88）. The most beneficial regimen （except for ADT+SNA） for rPFS was ADT+enzalutamide （HR＝0.39， 95%CI of 0.30-0.50）， followed by ADT+apalutamide （HR＝0.48， 95%CI of 0.39- 0.60）， abiraterone acetate （HR＝0.57， 95%CI of 0.51-0.64）， docetaxel （HR＝0.62， 95%CI of 0.56-0.69）. The results of the tumor- loading subgroup analysis were the same. In terms of safety， ADT+darolutamide+docetaxel （OR＝25.86， 95%CI of 14.08-51.33）， and ADT+docetaxel （OR＝23.35， 95%CI of 13.26-44.81） were associated with markedly increased SAEs； the incidence of SAEs caused by ADT+abiraterone acetate （OR＝1.42，95%CI of 1.10-1.82） was slightly increased， and those of other therapy plans had no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS Compared with ADT alone， ADT+ darolutamide+docetaxel may provide the most significant OS benefit， but the incidence of SAEs is increased greatly； compared with ADT+docetaxel， ADT+abiraterone acetate， apalutamide or enzalutamide provide more OS benefits. ADT+enzalutamide provide optimal rPFS benefits with no increased SAEs.
