Comparative efficacy of apalutamidedarolutamide and enzalutamidefor treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: Asystematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Introduction: Studies using apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide have shown improved metastasis free survival (MFS) rates, leaving clinicians with a dilemma of choosing one over the other, for nonmetastatic castration recurrent prostate cancer (nmCRPC). We performed a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect comparison of oncologic outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of these medications. Material and Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases, for studies reporting apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide until January 25, 2020. Results were input into an EndNote library, and data were extracted into a predefined template. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as radiologic progression or death. Network meta-analysis was done using R and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan v. 5. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value was used to provide rank probabilities. Results: We found 3 studies reporting results for apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. MFS was significantly lower in patients receiving darolutamide compared to both apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.97) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54–0.93). MFS was similar for enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73–1.28). In PFS, apalutamide showed a slightly higher rate compared to darolutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.99). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between any of the medications. There was no statistically significant difference in AEs profile of the 3 medications. However, darolutamide had the highest SUCRA value and probability of being the most preferred medication based on AEs profile. Conclusion: Enzalutamide and apalutamide had similar and higher MFS rate in indirect comparison with darolutamide. In cases where AEs are concerning, darolutamide might be the preferred agent.