If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Address for correspondence: Alejo Rodríguez-Vida, Genitourinary Cancer Unit and Early Drug Development Unit, Hospital del Mar, IMIM Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain, Phone: +34 93 248 3137
Affiliations
Medical Oncology Department, Hospital del Mar, IMIM Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
Three next generation antiandrogens significantly prolong overall survival in nm-CRPC
•
Mature survival data for these treatments are now available for meta-analysis
•
Simulated patient data-level may help to highlight differences among trials
•
Different study designs and follow-up may affect data interpretation
Abstract
There was a high medical need for patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) when several next-generation anti-androgens (apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide) demonstrated clinically relevant delays in metastasis onset. However, to date, few publications have assessed the pooled effect of these treatments on overall survival (OS). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized, placebo-controlled studies investigating a systemic treatment in nmCRPC. Publications were identified by searching several databases on April 7, 2021. The primary objective of this analysis was to determine the OS benefit. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk (RR) of adverse events (AEs) and grade 3-4 AEs. A sensitivity analysis with simulated data was also conducted to examine the influence of the study designs on the results. Three randomized controlled studies (SPARTAN, PROSPER, ARAMIS) met our inclusion criteria. Pooled meta-analyses showed a significant benefit in OS with the active agents versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83), as well as increased risk of any grade (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01–1.17) and grade 3-4 AEs (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23–1.83). The sensitivity analysis with SPARTAN-like simulated populations demonstrated that when using ARAMIS statistical design, OS would be statistically significant in 98.1% of the cases, at a shorter follow-up and with lower number of events. First-line treatment of nmCRPC patients with anti-androgens increased OS with an acceptable safety profile. In light of the different study designs and follow-up, results should be interpreted separately.
Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial.
Nevertheless, many patients on continuous ADT experience disease progression despite castrate levels of testosterone, transitioning to a disease stage known as “castration-resistant”.
Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) refers to patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels despite castrate levels of testosterone and no evidence of distant metastasis.
Effect of apalutamide on health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an analysis of the SPARTAN randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
The development of metastasis in this population is the point of no return marking the final stage of the disease, associated with pain, functionality and QoL deterioration, and increased mortality.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies using these three agents with the aim of (1) estimating the pooled OS benefit of these treatments and (2) evaluating the relative risk of adverse events (AEs) and grade 3-4 AEs of these agents in patients with nmCRPC. We also examined if different statistical approaches were comparable using simulated patient-level data.
Materials and methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.
The study protocol is available upon request, in lieu of a formal ethics committee review; the principles of the Helsinki Declaration were followed.
Search Strategy
We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for clinical studies in patients with nmCRPC published from database inception to April 7, 2021. The following key search terms were used: [(“castration resistant” AND “prostate cancer”) OR “CRPC”] AND (“non-metastatic” OR “nonmetastatic” OR “M0”) AND “overall survival”. The publication language was limited to English. When multiple publications on the same study were found, the most recent data were used.
Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection
We included prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III studies of systemic therapy in surgically or medically castrated patients with nmCRPC and testosterone levels ≤50 ng/dL. Only studies with a significant benefit in OS among their outcomes were selected.
Two authors (OAC and AQG) independently performed the searches and screened identified publications for inclusion. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third author (JRMT).
Quality Assessment
Two authors (AQG and OAC) independently evaluated the risk of bias in each study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2).
Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Randomization, blinding, control-group, crossover, follow-up time, and number of events for OS of each study were also used to assess the risk of bias.
Data Extraction
Publication year, first author, title, journal, and identification number (PMID or similar) from each publication were extracted to a text file for screening purposes, then descriptive, efficacy and safety variables from each study were extracted by OAC and AQG from the full text of each article using a standardized form.
Statistical Analysis
A standard pairwise meta-analysis was performed using R statistical software (Version 1.1.419 – 2009–2018 RStudio, Inc.) with R package meta. Aggregated data from efficacy and safety variables were analyzed in the whole intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The primary outcome was OS, and safety data were considered as secondary outcomes. All measurements were processed as hazard ratios (HR) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) when available. Chi-squared test of Q was employed to test heterogeneity among different studies, and I2 was used to quantify the inconsistency. Tau-squared was used to analyze the magnitude of heterogeneity. A P value of <.05 in chi-squared test and/or an I2 >75% was considered indicative of heterogeneity.
The meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method) if P > .1 and I2 <50%; otherwise, a random-effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was used.
A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.
Simulated Patient Data
Considering the similarities and differences in design and follow-up of the clinical studies, we hypothesized that small differences in statistical design between studies could affect the magnitude of the results. Hence, we conducted an analysis using simulated patient-level data to determine if the different statistical approaches used in the included studies were comparable as described elsewhere.
SPARTAN data was used as a model due to the longer follow-up. Individual patient data were obtained from published Kaplan-Meier curves using mathematical algorithms.
to evaluate if there would have been different statistical outcomes in OS if the SPARTAN statistical plan (eg, follow-up, alpha-spending function) had been different. Simulated populations were created solving an indeterminate compact system of equations that arose from the imposition of the OS results in the study subgroups. A multidisciplinary group of clinicians specialized in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer analyzed the simulated data and searched for clinical inconsistencies based on their expertise.
Results
Search Results and Risk of Bias
The initial literature search yielded 378 potentially relevant publications. After removal of duplicates, reviews, opinion articles, and retrospective studies (Supplementary Figure S1), three publications were included (Table 1) for the SPARTAN,
Reasons for discontinuation include: patient withdrawal and other reasons (SPARTAN and PROSPER) and personal reasons and investigators judgement (ARAMIS). bcThree randomized patients did not receive placebo.
a Reasons for discontinuation include: patient withdrawal and other reasons (SPARTAN and PROSPER) and personal reasons and investigators judgement (ARAMIS). bcThree randomized patients did not receive placebo.
All studies had OS among secondary endpoints and demonstrated a significant benefit (Table 2). Different interim analyses and alpha-spending functions were used for each study. In PROSPER, three interim analyses, and a final analysis of OS were planned after 135 (9.6%), 285 (20.3%), 440 (31.4%), and 596 (42.5%) deaths, respectively. Only the first
interim analyses were published, the last one being considered final because of the statistically significant improvement in OS observed. Two interim analyses and one final analysis were planned for the SPARTAN study when 104 (8.6%), 285 (23.6%), and 426 (35.3%), respectively, deaths had occurred.
Pooled meta-analysis showed a significant overall benefit regarding OS in patients treated with the systemic treatment versus placebo (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65–0.83; Figure 1). The I2 test showed low inconsistency among the studies (I2=0%; P = .75).
Figure 1Forest plot of overall survival in the SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS studies. ADT = androgen deprivation therapy; CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio; seTE = standard error treatment effect; TE = treatment effect.
The treatment effect on OS was consistent in subgroup analysis by PSA-DT (≤6 vs. >6 months), use of bone sparing agents (Yes vs. No), and presence of locoregional nodal disease (No vs. Yes) (Supplementary Table S2 and Figures S2, S3 and S4).
Safety Analysis
All three studies evaluated grade -3-5 AEs in the ITT populations; PROSPER and SPARTAN assessed AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0,
PROSPER and SPARTAN reported safety profiles after a similar follow-up (48 and 52 months, respectively), with median treatment durations of 33.9 and 32.9 months, respectively.
ARAMIS initially reported the safety analysis only for the double-blind treatment period, with a median duration of exposure of 18.5 months in the final OS analysis.
Subsequently, updated safety data from ARAMIS were reported for the combined double-blind and open-label treatment periods and with a median treatment exposure of 25.8 months (Table 3).
The proportion of patients with any AE, grade 3-4 AEs and serious AEs were different between the studies in placebo arms. AEs leading to discontinuation and grade 5 AEs were low in all three studies.
Pooled meta-analysis showed a significant risk for any AEs (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01–1.17; Figure 2A) and grade 3/4 AEs (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23–1.83; Figure 2B) with active treatment versus placebo. I2 showed a high inconsistency among the study results for any grade AEs (I2=89%, P < .01) and grade 3/4 AEs (I2=77%, P = .01).
Figure 2Forest plot of (A) any grade and (B) grade 3/4 adverse events in the SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS studies. ADT = androgen deprivation therapy; CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio; ADT = androgen deprivation therapy.
However, when the updated safety data from ARAMIS was used in the pooled meta-analysis for grade 3/4 AEs, the inconsistency among the studies significantly decreased (I2=25%; P = .27; Figures 3A-B).
Figure 3Forest plot of (A) any grade and (B) grade 3/4 adverse events in the SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS studies, including the long-term follow-up data in ARAMIS. ADT = androgen deprivation therapy; CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio.
Given the differences in follow-up and duration of exposure across studies, we also assessed relative risks by comparing individual AE risk in the active arms with the placebo arms (Table 4 and Figures. 4-5). This analysis showed that enzalutamide was associated with higher RR for fatigue, hypertension, falls, and fractures. Apalutamide was associated with a higher RR for rash and diarrhea. Including the updated safety data and 7.3 additional months of exposure, darolutamide was associated with a higher incidence of all individual AEs, including any-grade rash.
Table 4Relative risks of individual AEs in the included studies.
To check whether the differences in follow-up, number of planned interim analysis, and alpha-spending functions could affect the punctual estimation of OS in all studies (Supplementary Table S1), we analyzed the SPARTAN data (longer follow-up), under the ARAMIS study design conditions (shortest follow-up). The use of two and one interim analysis in ARAMIS and PROSPER, together with the use of the O'Brien-Fleming and Rho10 exponential functions, respectively, directly affected the alpha boundary of both studies. In the absence of individual patient data, a set of different simulated populations were generated using the same median OS times and HR as in the SPARTAN final analysis in each patient subgroup (based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PSA-DT, and presenceor absence of loco-regional disease).
The simulated populations were then validated by expert clinicians in nmCRPC patients.
Simulated populations can be analyzed at any point of planned events and simulate censored patients. Thus, the distribution of significant results in these SPARTAN simulated populations with two interim analyses and a final analysis using the O'Brien-Fleming function were more likely to be positive at the second interim analysis. If one interim analysis and one final analysis with an exponential Rho10 alpha-spending function are used, the method maximizes the probability of positive result at the final analysis (Supplementary Figure S5).
The analysis of SPARTAN-like simulated populations using one interim analysis and one final analysis (ARAMIS design) with potential function Rho10 achieved a significant advantage in OS in 98.1% of the cases with 28% total events (67% of planned events) at the second interim analysis (Figure 5A). This strategy maximized the highest P value boundary at the second stop despite less follow-up time. This is favored by an elevated Rho value in potential alpha-spending function, while small Rho values would perform similar to the O'Brien-Fleming function (Supplementary Figure S6).
Figure 5ACumulative positive results with SPARTAN simulated populations using SPARTAN (blue) and ARAMIS (orange) statistical designs.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of systemic treatments with OS benefit in nmCRPC and found that apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide showed clear advantages in OS.
but these were performed with immature data from interim analyses with non-significant OS, whereas ours used the most up-to-date results. Our data show that in patients with nmCRPC receiving treatment with these molecules, risk of death would be reduced by an 26%. Across trials, reported HR ranged from 0.69 (ARAMIS) to 0.78 (SPARTAN). When looking at the net benefit of the active treatment compared to the control arm, enzalutamide and apalutamide would provide additional 11 and 14 months of OS, respectively, while ARAMIS has not yet achieved survival medians preventing this calculation. This 11-14 months increment on survival represents a considerable magnitude of benefit, especially when compared with survival seen in later stages of the disease.
Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (COU-AA-302): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
PROSPER, SPARTAN and ARAMIS recruited 1401,1207 and 1509 patients respectively, the latter having the highest statistical power because it recruited 25% more patients than SPARTAN. All studies considered the use of alpha-spending functions to determine OS stopping boundaries in the interim analysis. While SPARTAN and PROSPER used the O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending function,
Both methods are valid when interim analyses are planned and alpha spending needs to be distributed among them. However, the distribution of alpha spending differed between the O'Brien-Fleming and exponential methods when a Rho10 parameter was set. The higher Rho parameter, the greater the chance of positive results in the final analysis when compared with the O'Brien-Fleming method.
Due to variability in the number of patients, follow-up time, and statistical design for OS, we performed a sensitivity analysis with a simulated SPARTAN population, according to accepted practices.
By changing the alpha-spending function, we demonstrated that SPARTAN could have achieved a positive result earlier. Also, punctual estimation of OS is usually less precise with a short follow-up period.
Patients in the placebo arm of SPARTAN had the highest incidence of any AE (93.7%) compared with PROSPER (81.7%) and ARAMIS (79.2%), and a higher occurrence of grade 3/4 and individual AEs. The visit schedules were different between studies. In SPARTAN, AEs were initially evaluated every 4 weeks, although a protocol amendment towards the end of the study allowed for a decrease in the frequency after the first year of treatment.
These differences may have introduced bias, especially for AEs reported by patients during study visits and without an impact on clinical history (falls, hot flushes, fatigue, diarrhea), suggesting that frequency of assessment affected AE incidence.
Additionally, the reporting period for safety results were different among studies. In PROSPER and SPARTAN, the long-term safety profile in the experimental arm was reported after more than 33.9 and 32.9 months of treatment, respectively, whereas ARAMIS safety data were limited to the double-blind period and reported after 18.5 months in the experimental arm, 11.6 months for the placebo arm, and 11 months in the crossover group.
Updated data from the double-blind and open-label treatment periods of ARAMIS showed increases in the incidence of any-grade, serious, and grade 3/4 AEs with longer follow-up and treatment exposure.
Therefore, the safety profile of darolutamide in ARAMIS should be taken in the context of the shorter follow-up duration and exposure to active drug compared with SPARTAN and PROSPER.
This meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in terms of OS, and an increase in any-grade and grade 3/4 AEs. Exhaustive examination of apparently similar studies revealed that differences in design, follow-up, number of patients, and the statistical plan exist, potentially playing a role in the interpretation of results. Using simulated patient-level data, results can vary using similar, but not equivalent, statistical approaches, highlighting the critical role that the statistical design plays in the results of each study. Studies with less mature data due to shorter follow-up, although valid in terms of statistical significance, are more uncertain in terms of punctual estimation of OS.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript draft, the development of inclusion criteria, the risk of bias assessment, the data extraction criteria, and performing the search strategy, and provided statistical expertise and expertise on nmCRPC. All authors have read and provided feedback on the manuscript draft, and approved the final draft of the manuscript for submission.
Disclosure
Óscar Amor-Carro, Jacobo Muñoz del Toro, Alberto Arribas and Alba Quesada are employees of Janssen. Dr. Eduardo Useros Rodríguez is a former employee of Janssen. Dr. Andrés Rodríguez has received consulting and speaker fees from Janssen and speaker fees from Astellas. Dr. Fernando López-Campos has received consulting and speaker fees from Janssen, Astellas, AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), and is receiving research funding from Astellas. Dr Alejo Rodriguez-Vida reports serving in an advisory role for MSD, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Clovis, Telix, and Roche; is receiving honoraria or travel expenses from Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Bayer, and Sanofi Aventis; and is receiving research funding from Takeda, Pfizer, and Merck.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Simone Tait of Springer Healthcare Communications who edited the manuscript before submission. This medical writing assistance was funded by Janssen. This work was supported by Janssen. The funding supported expenses related to the publication of the manuscript, any software requirements, and access to the full versions of all papers needed for the review. The authors did not receive any funding in terms of participation in this publication.
Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial.
Effect of apalutamide on health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an analysis of the SPARTAN randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (COU-AA-302): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
00219-6&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
00219-6&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
00219-6&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}
00219-6&id=gr4.jpg){kind=link}
00219-6&id=gr5.jpg){kind=link}
00219-6&id=gr6.jpg){kind=link}