Indirect comparison of abiraterone acetate and docetaxel for treatment of metastatic “hormone-sensitive” prostate cancer

Feyerabend, S.; Saad, Fred; Li, T.; Ito, Tetsuro; Diels, Joris; Sanden, Suzy Van; Porre, Peter De; Roïz, Julie; Abogunrin, Seye; Fizazi, Karim

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx370.020

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other network meta-analyses have been reported. Feyerabend et al [ 18 ] presented the results of an indirect comparison of AAP and Doc based on the results of just two trials. Wallis et al [ 19 ] have also reported indirect comparisons of ADT plus AAP with ADT plus Doc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOur prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies.MethodsOverall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed.ResultsWe identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.71], Doc (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68–0.87), ZA + Cel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.97), ZA + Doc (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66–0.94), Cel (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.75–1.17) and ZA (HR = 0.90 95% CI 0.79–1.03). The effect of ZA + Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability).ConclusionsUniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Немногим ранее S. Feyerabend и соавт. пред-ставили результаты непрямого сравнения абиратерона и доцетаксела, основанные на данных всего 2 иссле-дований [32]. Кроме того, аналогичное сравнение не-давно опубликовали C. J. D. Wallis и соавт.…”

Section: диагностика и лечение опухолей мочеполовой системы рак предunclassified

Comparison of Abiraterone Acetate and Docetaxel with Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk and Metastatic Hormone-naïve Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ВведениеРак предстательной железы (РПЖ) является наи-более часто выявляемым некожным злокачественным заболеванием в США и Европе и одной из наиболее частых причин онкологической летальности [1]. Не-смотря на эффективность гормональной терапии (ГТ), у всех пациентов с метастатическим процессом рано или поздно отмечается прогрессирование заболева-ния -переход в кастрационно-резистентный РПЖ (КРРПЖ), который ассоциирован с плохим исходом. В 2004 г. по результатам 2 исследований препарат из группы таксанов доцетаксел был внесен в рекомен-дации как метод 1-й линии лечения метастатического КРРПЖ (мКРРПЖ), продемонстрировавший свою относительную безопасность и эффективность [2,3]. В случае дальнейшего прогрессирования возможности эффективного лечения были крайне ограничены. Не-сколько препаратов было оценено во II фазе исследо-ваний, однако показан лишь умеренный ответ -сни-жение уровня простатического специфического антигена (ПСА) на ≥50 % у 17-24 % пациентов. На се-годняшний день ввиду отсутствия улучшения выжи-ваемости и качества жизни больных эти препараты не рекомендуются в качестве терапии 2-й линии мКРРПЖ [4].Разработка и внедрение в клиническую практику препарата группы таксанов 2-го поколения стали сле-дующим шагом лечения мКРРПЖ [5].

show abstract

“…Of these, all but one [25] reported within a year of the publication of two major abiraterone results in June 2017 [13,38]. The rst six months alone saw four articles submitted for peer review [16][17][18][19] and six accepted conference abstracts [26][27][28][32][33][34]. Among the former, statistical methodology was relatively simple and there was no evidence of a priori intent, so it may be surmised that speed of dissemination was at least a partial motivation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duplicated Network Meta-analysis: a Case Study and Recommendations for Change

Fisher¹,

Burdett²,

Vale³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews. We carried out a systematic review to identify and examine duplicated Network Meta-Analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC).MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of systemic treatments in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers.ResultsA total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1,773 and 7,844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear.Conclusions and RecommendationsVariation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the unique aims or scope of the project. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation. Review authors should be fully knowledgeable of their subject, both in terms of relevant studies and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication; and should re-evaluate their knowledge throughout the research process, particularly in fast-moving fields.

show abstract

Indirect comparison of abiraterone acetate and docetaxel for treatment of metastatic “hormone-sensitive” prostate cancer

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis

Comparison of Abiraterone Acetate and Docetaxel with Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk and Metastatic Hormone-naïve Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Duplicated Network Meta-analysis: a Case Study and Recommendations for Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About