First-line Systemic Treatment Options for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown.

Objective

To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available.

Study Selection

Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

Results

This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT.

Conclusions and Relevance

The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

The role of chemotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the role of chemotherapy and offer some guidance regarding the selection of chemotherapy in mPC.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with mHSPC have varied prognoses with testosterone suppression alone (androgen deprivation therapy, ADT) and differential responses to docetaxel with ADT. Patients with de novo and metachronous high-volume disease have a robust survival benefit with the addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapies. Patients with synchronous low-volume disease have a more modest survival benefit from docetaxel and there is no evidence of survival benefit with docetaxel in patients with metachronous low-volume disease. Integration of biomarkers may refine treatment selection regardless of volume of disease. Docetaxel and cabazitaxel also impart an OS benefit in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The choice of chemotherapy in mCRPC depends on treatment received in mHSPC setting. Docetaxel remains the first line chemotherapy in castration-resistant patients who have not received it in mHSPC followed by cabazitaxel, otherwise cabazitaxel can be deployed without docetaxel retreatment.

SUMMARY

Chemotherapy is a key class of therapy for selected patients with mHSPC and mCRPC.

A drug safety evaluation of enzalutamide to treat advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in North American men. Advanced PC is incurable. The androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide is used to manage advanced PC, often over a period of months or years; it is therefore important to evaluate the safety profile of enzalutamide.

AREAS COVERED

This literature review presents safety data from pivotal trials and real-world data studies of enzalutamide in patients with advanced PC, including metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A large body of evidence supports the maintenance or improvement in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) afforded by enzalutamide treatment in patients with mHSPC, nmCRPC, or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, as well as improvement in the HRQoL in patients with later-stage symptomatic mCRPC. Efficacy data from clinical trials are also briefly discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

We aim to provide clinicians with a better understanding of how to properly interpret enzalutamide clinical trial safety data. This knowledge may help clinicians guide their patients with PC to achieve optimal clinical benefit from enzalutamide therapy, and to properly manage their patients to mitigate any potential risk.

A Clinical Evaluation of Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Guiding Principles for Treatment Selection and Perspectives on Research

Enzalutamide was the first novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitor to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in non-metastatic and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). It has emerged as one of the most commonly prescribed oral prostate cancer therapies (ARSI) by medical oncologists and urologists. Amongst a panoply of treatment options for metastatic CSPC, safe and effective utilization of enzalutamide dictates a detailed understanding of alternative therapy options and competing toxicity profiles. Ongoing research supports the potential for expanded enzalutamide use in earlier disease states, in combination with other systemic agents and as monotherapy (without androgen deprivation therapy). Optimal application of enzalutamide will ultimately require greater insight and attention to mitigating strategies for treatment-associated fatigue, cognitive impairment, and functional decline. This publication will comprehensively analyze the clinical evidence and guiding principles of enzalutamide use in CSPC. We will also provide a critical review of ongoing and future ARSI research focusing on pharmacologic approaches to overcome treatment resistance and strategies to improve treatment-associated functional impairment.

Evaluation of Cognitive Function in Trials Testing New-Generation Hormonal Therapy in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In patients with prostate cancer, the use of new-generation hormonal therapy, added to androgen deprivation therapy, requires careful evaluation of cognitive function. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the evidence about cognitive function in randomized trials testing new-generation hormonal therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide). For each trial, we assessed the availability of both investigator-assessed cognitive impairment and disorders and patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function. Out of 19 trials, the investigator-based evaluation of cognitive impairment was available in seven (36.8%), while patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function results was presented only in one trial (5.3%). This analysis shows that, despite cognitive deterioration could be relevant in patients with prostate cancer, clinical development of new-generation hormonal drugs has not included a systematic evaluation of cognitive function.

Abstract

In patients with prostate cancer, earlier use and longer duration of new-generation hormonal therapy (NGHT), added to androgen deprivation therapy, requires careful evaluation of cognitive function. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the evidence about cognitive function in all the randomized trials (RCTs) testing NGHT (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide). We assessed the availability of both investigator-assessed cognitive impairment and disorders and patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function. Nineteen RCTs (17,617 patients) were included. The investigator-based evaluation of cognitive impairment was available in seven RCTs (36.8%). In total, 19/19 RCTs (100%) included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection, but PRO tools adopted allowed evaluation of cognitive function in two RCTs (10.5%). Among them, PRO-based cognitive function results were presented only in one RCT (5.3%): in ENZAMET, mean changes from baseline were worse with enzalutamide than with placebo, but deterioration-free survival favored enzalutamide. Despite cognitive deterioration could be relevant, clinical development of NGHT has not included a systematic evaluation of cognitive function. Assessment by investigators is at risk of underreporting, and commonly used PROs do not allow proper cognitive function analysis. Furthermore, the methodology of analysis can jeopardize the interpretation of results. Although direct comparisons are scanty, there could be differences between different NGHTs.