Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety evaluation of androgen deprivation therapy-based combinations for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Wang T, Wang X, Ding G, Liu H, Ma X, Ma J, Cui Y, Wu J

British journal of cancer, 2024

14,995 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety profiles of current combination therapies based on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the heterogeneous population of individuals with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC).

METHODS: We retrieved pertinent literature from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases. The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023453853) for transparency.

RESULTS: Our analysis included 20 RCTs involving 14,995 patients, evaluating 15 ADT-based combinations, including systemic therapies, radiotherapy and surgery. In the overall population, the darolutamide triplet (DARO + docetaxel + ADT) demonstrated comparable overall survival (OS) benefits to prostatectomy/radical local therapy (RLT) plus ADT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.57). Additionally, the enzalutamide (ENZ) triplet (ENZ + DOC + ADT) appeared to confer the best progression-free survival (HR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.27-0.43). Subgroup analysis based on metastatic burden indicated that RLT plus ADT had the best OS performance in patients with low burden, while the DARO triplet was associated with the best OS in patients with high burden. Regarding adverse events (AEs), the addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) agents to ADT led to an increased incidence of severe…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 14,995 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