Efficacy and Safety of Abiraterone Acetate and Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Main Authors: ZhenHeng Wei, ChuXin Chen, BoWen Li, YongYue Li, Hong Gu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-08-01
• Series: Frontiers in Oncology
• Subjects: abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide; mCRPC; meta-analysis; systematic review
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.732599/full

ObjectiveThe androgen receptor-targeting drugs abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide have shown positive results as treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC.MethodsWe retrieved relevant articles from PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE published before December 31, 2020. Eleven articles were initially selected, and four phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide that involved 5199 patients with mCRPC were included. The end points were time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP), according to the prostate-specific antigen working group criteria; overall survival (OS); and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).ResultsFour randomized, controlled clinical trials involving 5199 patients were included in this study. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo alone, abiraterone significantly improved OS (HR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.8, P<0.00001), rPFS (HR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.57-0.71, P < 0.00001), and TTPP (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.45-0.59, P < 0.00001) in patients with mCRPC. Compared with placebo, enzalutamide significantly improved OS (HR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.59-0.75, P<0.00001), rPFS (HR=0.33, 95% CI: 0.29-0.37, P< 0.00001), and TTPP (HR=0.19, 95% CI: 0.17-0.22, P < 0.00001). An indirect comparison was performed to compare the efficacy of abiraterone and enzalutamide. The results showed that there was no significant difference between abiraterone and enzalutamide with regard to improving the OS of patients with mCRPC (HR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.854-1.242). Enzalutamide was superior to abiraterone with regard to improving rPFS in patients with mCRPC (HR=0.516, 95% CI: 0.438-0.608). With regard to improving TTPP, the efficacy of enzalutamide was better than that of abiraterone (HR=0.365, 95% CI: 0.303-0.441). In sAE, there was no difference between abiraterone and enzalutamide (P=0.21, I2 = 38%).ConclusionsCompared with placebo, both abiraterone and enzalutamide significantly prolonged OS, rPFS, and TTPP in patients with mCRPC. There was no difference in safety between abiraterone and enzalutamide. In addition, enzalutamide had better efficacy than abiraterone with regard to improving rPFS and TTPP but not OS, but the level of evidence was low. Therefore, a large direct comparison trial is needed to compare the efficacy of the two drugs.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO, identifier (CRD42021226808)