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

Background: The 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Overall, 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. Conclusion: The 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.