Apalutamide Compared with Darolutamide for the Treatment of Non-metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Efficacy and Tolerability in a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Simon Chowdhury, Stephane Oudard, Hiroji Uemura, Steven Joniau, Lindsay Dearden, Camille Capone, Suzy Van Sanden, Joris Diels, Boris A Hadaschik, Simon Chowdhury, Stephane Oudard, Hiroji Uemura, Steven Joniau, Lindsay Dearden, Camille Capone, Suzy Van Sanden, Joris Diels, Boris A Hadaschik

Abstract

Introduction: Apalutamide and darolutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that have demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebo in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In the absence of head-to-head studies, the present study sought to indirectly compare the efficacy and tolerability between these two treatments.

Methods: This anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) used patient-level data from the phase 3, randomized, controlled SPARTAN study (apalutamide + ADT), weighted to match aggregate published data from the ARAMIS study (darolutamide + ADT) for clinically relevant baseline measures. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were estimated for efficacy endpoints: metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Odds ratios were estimated for tolerability outcomes: adverse events and serious adverse events.

Results: Before weighting, baseline characteristics from SPARTAN versus ARAMIS were different for median PSA (7.8 vs. 9.2 ng/mL), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (23% vs. 31%), use of bone-targeted agents (10% vs. 4%), median time from initial diagnosis (94.9 vs. 85.4 months), and proportion of patients from North America (35% vs. 12%) and Europe (50% vs. 64%). After matching (n = 455), our analysis demonstrated that apalutamide + ADT had a Bayesian probability of being more effective than darolutamide + ADT for MFS [98.3%; HR 0.70 (95% CrI 0.51, 0.98)], PSA progression [~ 100%; HR 0.46 (95% CrI 0.33, 0.64)], and PFS [93.2%; HR 0.79 (95% CrI 0.59, 1.08)]. Results for OS and tolerability were similar between apalutamide + ADT and darolutamide + ADT.

Conclusion: This anchored MAIC analysis of pivotal phase 3 studies in patients with nmCRPC suggests that apalutamide + ADT is more effective than darolutamide + ADT for MFS, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, with a similar OS benefit and tolerability profile.

Trial registration: ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02200614; SPARTAN ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01946204.

Keywords: Androgen deprivation therapy; Apalutamide; Darolutamide; Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; Oncology.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Posterior distribution of hazard ratio of a metastasis-free survival, b progression-free survival, c prostate-specific antigen progression, and d overall survival at the first interim analyses among patients of the SPARTAN study versus ARAMIS study. A hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) below 1 favors APA + ADT and a value above 1 favors DARO + ADT. Solid curves show the matching-adjusted indirect comparison after reweighting of patient-level data in SPARTAN, using aggregate-level data from ARAMIS. Dashed curves show original SPARTAN data versus ARAMIS data. ADT androgen deprivation therapy; CrI credible interval; MFS metastasis-free survival; OS overall survival; PFS progression-free survival; PSA prostate-specific antigen
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Posterior distribution of hazard ratio of adverse events, and serious adverse events among patients of the SPARTAN study versus ARAMIS study. A hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) below 1 favors APA + ADT and a value above 1 favors DARO + ADT. Solid curves show the matching-adjusted indirect comparison after reweighting of patient-level data in SPARTAN, using aggregate-level data from ARAMIS. Dashed curves show original SPARTAN data versus ARAMIS data. AE adverse event; CrI credible interval; SAE serious adverse events

References

    1. Mohler JL, et al. Prostate cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(5):479–505. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023.
    1. Dai C, Heemers H, Sharifi N. Androgen signaling in prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2017;7(9):a030452. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a030452.
    1. Howard LE, et al. Thresholds for PSA doubling time in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120(5B):E80–E86. doi: 10.1111/bju.13856.
    1. El-Amm J, Aragon-Ching JB. The current landscape of treatment in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2019;13:1179554919833927. doi: 10.1177/1179554919833927.
    1. Gillessen S, et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. Eur Urol. 2020;77(4):508–547. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.01.012.
    1. Smith MR, et al. Apalutamide treatment and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(15):1408–1418. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1715546.
    1. Fizazi K, et al. Darolutamide in nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(13):1235–1246. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815671.
    1. Hussain M, et al. Enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(26):2465–2474. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800536.
    1. Small EJ, et al. Apalutamide and overall survival in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(11):1813–1820. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz397.
    1. Smith MR, et al. Apalutamide and overall survival in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021;79(1):150–158. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.08.011.
    1. Fizazi K, et al. Nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and survival with darolutamide. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(11):1040–1049. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001342.
    1. Phillippo, D.A.T., Dias, S., Palmer, S., Abrams, K. R., & Welton, N. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE. (Technical Support Documents). 2016; 24 Jul 2020.
    1. Signorovitch JE, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–947. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.004.
    1. Chowdhury S, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of apalutamide and enzalutamide with ADT in the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Adv Ther. 2020;37(1):501–511. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5.
    1. Chowdhury S, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of health-related quality of life and adverse events of apalutamide versus enzalutamide in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Adv Ther. 2020;37(1):512–526. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01157-4.
    1. Dias S, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):607–617. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12458724.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Technology Appraisal Guidance. . 2017
    1. Phillippo, D.M., et al., NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submission to NICE. 2016.
    1. Glen, S. Effective Sample Size: Definition, Examples. 2016 17/12/2020].
    1. Di Nunno V, et al. New hormonal agents in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):e871–e877. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.07.001.
    1. Liu Z, et al. Systemic management for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2020;43(4):288–297. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000660.
    1. Kumar J, et al. Comparative efficacy of enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide for treatment on non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;203(Suppl 4):e1217–e1217.
    1. Cusano E, et al. Systemic therapy for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC): a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(6 suppl):113–113. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.113.
    1. Hird AE, et al. Novel androgen receptor inhibitors in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(6):131–131. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.131.
    1. Riaz IB, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of FDA approved treatment options in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0CRPC) J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(6):335–335. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.335.
    1. Altavilla A, et al. 868P—safety of new androgen receptor inhibitors (ARi) in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) Ann Oncol. 2019;30:339. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz248.025.
    1. Bucher HC, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–691. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8.
    1. Nieto-Gómez P, Ubago-Pérez R, Cabeza-Barrera J. Efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide in the treatment of non-metastasic castration-resistant prostate cancer: indirect comparison. Actas Urol Esp. 2019;43(7):355–363. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.03.007.
    1. Wallis CJD, et al. Advanced androgen blockage in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an indirect comparison of apalutamide and enzalutamide. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(3):238–241. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.004.
    1. Mills EJ, et al. Estimating the power of indirect comparisons: a simulation study. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):16237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016237.
    1. Jansen JP, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–428. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002.
    1. Drago JZ, Kantoff PW, Stopsack KH. Adverse event profiles of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide in SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS: How confident are we about which drug is safest? J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(6 suppl):318–318. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.318.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren