ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Efficacy and safety of treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A comprehensive network meta-analysis including final ARANOTE data.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the proven efficacy of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), many patients still receive ADT monotherapy due to safety concerns. This reliance on ADT monotherapy underscores the need for education on the comparative effectiveness and safety of available therapies versus ADT. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of alternative treatment combinations, incorporating final data from the recent ARANOTE Phase III trial.
methodsWe conducted network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), incorporating heterogeneity assessment through subgroup analyses. Additionally, we performed a separate class effect NMA. We analysed grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuation due to AEs. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for efficacy, rate ratios (RRs) for safety, 95% credible intervals (CrI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) to rank treatments by efficacy and safety.
resultsDarolutamide (DAR) + docetaxel (DOC) + ADT showed the highest effect size [HR of 0.27 (95% CrI: 0.18, 0.39)] and the highest ranking (SUCRA: 0.97) across the base case and several subgroups on the PFS outcome. On OS, DAR + DOC + ADT similarly achieved the lowest HR of 0.52 (0.43, 0.64) and the highest ranking (SUCRA of 0.95). Safety analyses showed that grade 3-5 AEs were more frequent with docetaxel combinations, with ABI + DOC + ADT having the highest risk of grade 3-5 AEs. DAR + ADT was ranked best on all safety outcomes, outperforming other doublets and comparable to ADT monotherapy.
conclusionsThis NMA supports the superior efficacy of ARPI combinations against ADT monotherapy, for both OS and PFS. While DAR + ADT demonstrated comparable efficacy to other doublet combinations, it offered a superior safety profile, making it an effective and safe option for managing patients with mCSPC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41366131What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.