Systemic therapy for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC): A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

Abstract

113 Background: The treatment landscape for M0 CRPC has changed following the demonstrated efficacy of new agents in recent randomized control trials (RCT). However, the comparative effectiveness of these novel agents is unknown. This NMA indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of available therapies for M0 CRPC. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid), EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR, PubMed, PubMed Central, CINAHL, and TRIP Database was performed. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals were extracted for the primary outcome metastasis-free survival (MFS) and the secondary outcomes overall survival (OS) and grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE). Bone MFS was used as a surrogate for MFS when MFS was not reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A Bayesian NMA was performed using a fixed-effects model. Results: Four RCT were analyzed (n=5549). Each trial compared either apalutamide (APA), enzalutamide (ENZA), darolutamide (DARO), or denosumab (DENO) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to placebo plus ADT. Risk of bias was low. For MFS, APA and ENZA had similar efficacy (Table), and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Analysis demonstrated a 59% probability that APA was preferred for MFS, followed by ENZA (41%). There was a trend for improved OS for APA, DARO and ENZA, but no meaningful differences between these agents. APA, ENZA, and DARO had a similar risk of AEs and all had a greater risk of AEs compared to DENO. Conclusions: APA and ENZA appear to be the most efficacious treatments for MFS in M0 CRPC, though more data for OS is required. Compared to DARO, APA and ENZA’s demonstrated efficacy is not at the expense of added toxicity.[Table: see text]