Meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate for first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in real-world settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors such as abiraterone and enzalutamide have demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published real-world evidence studies comparing outcomes among patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone in the first-line setting. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify eligible studies. Evaluated outcomes were: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, PSA response, all-grade adverse events, grade ≥3 adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and dose reduction. Each outcome's suitability for meta-analysis was evaluated by assessing whether there were sufficient data to make comparisons between studies, consistency between outcome definitions, and whether the studies adjusted for baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes deemed suitable for meta-analysis were analyzed using fixed-effect and random-effect models to obtain pooled-effect sizes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of conclusions. Results: Of 1849 records reviewed, 30 were eligible for inclusion. Most outcomes were deemed unsuitable for meta-analysis due to a lack of adjustment for baseline characteristics, issues with inconsistent outcome definitions, and the small number of studies reporting each outcome. The only outcome deemed suitable for meta-analysis was OS. A total of 17 studies reported hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, 11 of which were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Among the studies reporting adjusted HRs, the pooled-effect estimate favored enzalutamide over abiraterone (reference group) in the fixed-effect model (HR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.87-0.93]) and the random-effect model (HR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.86-0.94]). These results were consistent across all sensitivity analyses. Discussion: Across all analyses, enzalutamide demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in OS compared with abiraterone. These findings highlight the value of real-world evidence studies to demonstrate the potential of different therapies under real-world conditions and over long periods of time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".