Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Apalutamide and Enzalutamide with ADT in the Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.
ADT
Apalutamide
Enzalutamide
M0CRPC
Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
Journal
Advances in therapy
ISSN: 1865-8652
Titre abrégé: Adv Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8611864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
19
08
2019
pubmed:
10
12
2019
medline:
6
10
2020
entrez:
9
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Apalutamide and enzalutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that demonstrated efficacy in placebo-controlled studies (SPARTAN for apalutamide; PROSPER for enzalutamide) when used in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In the absence of comparative studies between these agents, the present study sought to indirectly compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with nmCRPC who received these therapies. Individual patient-level data from SPARTAN (apalutamide plus ADT) and published data from PROSPER (enzalutamide plus ADT) were utilized. An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting the patients from the SPARTAN study to match baseline characteristics reported for PROSPER. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MFS and OS were re-estimated for SPARTAN using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of PROSPER using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. From the SPARTAN population (N = 1207), a total of 1171 patients were matched to the PROSPER population (N = 1401). The recalculated HRs (95% confidence interval) for apalutamide versus ADT based on the reweighted SPARTAN data to mimic the PROSPER patient population were 0.26 (0.21; 0.33) for MFS and 0.62 (0.41; 0.94) for OS. MAIC-based HRs (95% credible interval) for apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 0.91 (0.68; 1.22) for MFS and 0.77 (0.46; 1.30) for OS. The Bayesian probabilities of apalutamide being more effective than enzalutamide were 73.6% for MFS and 83.5% for OS. MAIC results suggest that nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide have a higher probability of a more favorable MFS and OS compared with those treated with enzalutamide.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31813086
doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5
pii: 10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5
pmc: PMC6979453
doi:
Substances chimiques
Androgen Receptor Antagonists
0
Benzamides
0
Nitriles
0
Thiohydantoins
0
apalutamide
0
Phenylthiohydantoin
2010-15-3
enzalutamide
93T0T9GKNU
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.10283066']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Pagination
501-511Références
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct;19(10):1404-1416
pubmed: 30213449
Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):940-7
pubmed: 22999145
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 May 22;10:1319-1327
pubmed: 29861642
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
pubmed: 9250266
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 31;371(5):424-33
pubmed: 24881730
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Aug;1(3):238-241
pubmed: 31102627
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 12;378(15):1408-1418
pubmed: 29420164
CNS Drugs. 2013 Nov;27(11):943-53
pubmed: 23975660
World J Urol. 2016 Nov;34(11):1505-1513
pubmed: 26988552
Eur Urol. 2018 Oct;74(4):534-535
pubmed: 29866462
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 21;6(1):e16237
pubmed: 21283698
Prog Urol. 2018 Nov;28(12S):S79-S130
pubmed: 30392712
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 30;8:323-33
pubmed: 27418847
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28
pubmed: 21669366
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 1;31(28):3525-30
pubmed: 24002508
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun;33(6):537-49
pubmed: 25795232
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 28;378(26):2465-2474
pubmed: 29949494
Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):285-293
pubmed: 30119985
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jul;9(26):1-134, iii-iv
pubmed: 16014203
Curr Med Res Opin. 2015 Feb;31(2):315-22
pubmed: 25356603
Cancer Res. 2008 Jun 1;68(11):4447-54
pubmed: 18519708
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):607-17
pubmed: 23104435