Systemic therapies for metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer: network meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and network meta‐analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next‐generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis extension statement for network meta‐analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression‐free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible. RESULTS: Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta‐analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76–0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82–0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73–0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67–0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65–0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78–0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63–0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78–0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77–0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73–0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low‐volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.