Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34054128›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022

Overall survival and adverse events after treatment with darolutamide vs. apalutamide vs. enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Mike Wenzel, Luigi Nocera, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Christoph Würnschimmel, Zhe Tian, Shahrokh F Shariat, Fred Saad, Derya Tilki, Markus Graefen, Luis A Kluth and 5 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The mFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Best of 2022 in prostate cancer and prostatic diseases.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 8 countries.

Mike Wenzel *Department of Urology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Mike.Wenzel@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4338-0889
Luigi Nocera *Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3354-8139
Claudia Collà RuvoloDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8110-7341
Christoph WürnschimmelDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7891-4791
Zhe TianDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1426-9273
Fred SaadDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Derya TilkiMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-1380
Markus GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Luis A KluthDepartment of Urology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Alberto BrigantiDepartment of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Philipp MandelDepartment of Urology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Francesco MontorsiDepartment of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Pierre I KarakiewiczDivision of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversité de Montréal · CAIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Jordan · JO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.

resultsOverall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6-10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.

conclusionThe current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantBenzamidesHumansMaleNitrilesPhenylthiohydantoinProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenPyrazolesThiohydantoinsTreatment OutcomeapalutamideBenzamidesdarolutamideenzalutamideNitrilesPhenylthiohydantoinProstate-Specific AntigenPyrazolesThiohydantoins

Identifiers

PMID34054128
PMCPMC9184262
OpenAlexW3165392750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.