Evidence Hub

Clinical efficacy of apalutamide in Asian patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: Bayesian reanalysis of the TITAN trial

Chen W, Yoshida S, Hirakawa A, Sato H, Yajima S, Kobayashi M, Fujiwara M, Fukushima H et al.

Japanese journal of clinical oncology, 2026

221 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 TITAN trial revealed that apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has significantly improved outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, the generalizability of these results to Asian and Japanese populations remains unclear. Bayesian methods provide a probabilistic framework offering more clinically meaningful estimates of benefit in such subpopulations.

METHODS: We conducted a Bayesian post hoc analysis using reconstructed individual patient data from the published Asian (n = 221) and Japanese (n = 51) TITAN trial subpopulations. Bayesian Cox proportional hazards models were fitted under four prespecified priors representing different skepticism levels. Posterior median hazard ratios (HRs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and probabilities of any benefit (Pr[HR < 1.0]) or substantial benefit (Pr[HR < 0.8]) were calculated.

RESULTS: The posterior median HR under the neutral prior for overall survival in the Asian cohort was 0.71 (95% CrI 0.44-1.14), with Pr[HR < 1.0] = 92% and Pr[HR < 0.8] = 69%. Probabilities exceeded 95% under more informative priors. The Japanese cohort demonstrated more pronounced effects (neutral prior HR: 0.55, 95% CrI: 0.22-1.35) with ≥90% probability of benefit across all priors. Posterior median HRs for TTmCRPC were 0.32-0.35 across priors, with ~100% probability of treatment benefit in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION: This analysis provides strengthened evidence that…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 221 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free