Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen deprivation (AD) constitutes, in most cases, the first-line of treatment for these cases. The negative impact of CAD in quality of life, secondary to the adverse events of sustained hormone deprivation, plus the costs of this therapy, motivated the intermittent treatment approach. The objective of this study is to to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), time to progression (TTP) and adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data. The results were expressed as Hazard Ratio (HR) or Risk Ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI 95%). RESULTS: The final analysis included 13 trials comprising 6,419 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. TTP was similar in patients who received intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) or continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) (fixed effect: HR = 1.04; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.14; p = 0.3). OS and CSS were also similar in patients treated with IAD or CAD (OS: fixed effect: HR = 1.02; CI 95% = 0.95 to 1.09; p = 0.56 and CSS: fixed effect: HR = 1.06; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.18; p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Overall survival was similar between IAD and CAD in patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Data on CSS are weak and the benefits of IAD on this outcome remain uncertain. Impact in QoL was similar for both groups, however, sexual activity scores were higher and the incidence of hot flushes was lower in patients treated with IAD.

Hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy (HEBRT) versus conventional external-beam radiation (CEBRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and side effect profile of hypofractionated versus conventional external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Several databases were searched, including Medline, EmBase, LiLACS, and Central. The endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The final analysis included nine trials comprising 2702 patients. Freedom from biochemical failure was reported in only three studies and was similar in patients who received hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy (fixed effect, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20; P = 0.75), with heterogeneity [χ(2) = 15.32, df = 2 (P = 0.0005); I2 = 87%]. The incidence of acute adverse gastrointestinal events was higher in the hypofractionated group (fixed effect, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.45-2.81; P < 0.0001). We also found moderate heterogeneity on this analysis [χ(2) = 7.47, df = 5 (P = 0.19); I2 = 33%]. Acute genitourinary toxicity was similar among the groups (fixed effect, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.49; P = 0.13), with moderate heterogeneity [χ(2) = 5.83, df = 4 (P = 0.21); I2 = 31%]. The incidence of all late adverse events was the same in both groups (fixed effect, gastrointestinal toxicity, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79-1.72, P = 0.44; and acute genitourinary toxicity, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.68, P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer was not superior to conventional radiotherapy and showed higher acute gastrointestinal toxicity in this meta-analysis. Because the number of published studies is still small, future assessments should be conducted to clarify better the true role of hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Immunotherapy with Sipuleucel-T (APC8015) in patients with metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer (mCRPC): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of Sipuleucel-T versus placebo for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP) and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data. The results are expressed as Hazard Ratio (HR) or Risk Ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%). RESULTS: The final analysis included 3 trials comprising 737 patients. The TTP was similar in patients who received Sipuleucel-T or placebo (fixed effect: HR = 0.89; CI 95% = 0.75 to 1.05; p = 0.16), with no heterogeneity detected on this analysis (Chi2 = 2.14, df = 2 (P = 0.34); I2 = 6%). The results showed a higher overall survival in patients treated with Sipuleucel-T (fixed effect: HR = 0.74; CI 95% = 0.61 to 0.89; p = 0.001; NNT = 3). We found no heterogeneity on this analysis either (Chi2 = 1.46, df = 2 (P = 0.48); I2 = 0%). The incidence of adverse events (grade > 3) was the same in both groups. CONCLUSION: Sipuleucel-T prolongs overall survival in patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC.