OBJECTIVE: Androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have become an effective treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC). However, it is unknown which ARI is the most helpful and safe for men with advanced PC. Our aim is to help physicians make clinical decisions and provide medication guidelines for patients with advanced PC to avoid potential risks when using ARIs for treatment.
METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, with a literature publication deadline of February 2023. The primary efficacy outcomes were 18-month overall survival (OS), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), hypertension and fatigue. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by Stata 15.1, and Revman 5.3 was used to assess the included studies\' risk of bias.
RESULTS: The analysis included 26 trials with 26 263 people. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) concluded that enzalutamide (86.8%) showed the best effect in prolonging the OS of patients. Flutamide led to the highest risk of TEAEs (29.9%) and AEs leading to discontinuation (12.8%). Apalutamide (13.4%) led to the highest risk of grade ≥3 TEAEs. Enzalutamide had the highest risk of hypertension (0.2%), grade ≥3 hypertension (4.5%) and fatigue (5.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA indicates there is no one ARI to reach both the most effective and safe therapy aims for treating advanced PC and that there is a compromise between the efficacy and safety of ARIs in the treatment of advanced PC. Physicians should weigh the risks to safety against the anticipated benefits when prescribing these drugs to patients with PC.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide, a second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of metastatic disease, as well as in the treatment of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (PCa). This systematic review aims to determine outcomes and toxicity in patients with non-metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC) treated with enzalutamide in the primary or salvage settings.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review focusing on the role of Enzalutamide in the treatment of nmCSPC, using the PubMed/Medline database. Articles focusing on androgen receptor inhibitors in nmCSPC were included, while articles discussing exclusively metastatic or castration-resistant PCa were excluded.
RESULTS: The initial search retrieved 401 articles, of which 15 underwent a thorough assessment for relevance. Ultimately, 12 studies with pertinent outcomes were meticulously examined. Among these, seven studies were dedicated to the investigation of enzalutamide in the primary setting, while the remaining five publications specifically addressed its use in salvage settings. Regardless of the treatment setting, our data revealed two distinct therapeutic strategies. The first advocates for the substitution of enzalutamide for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), based on the premise of achieving equivalent, if not superior, oncological outcomes while minimizing treatment-related toxicity. The second, adopting a more conventional approach, entails augmenting the effectiveness of ADT by incorporating enzalutamide.
CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide has considerable potential as a therapeutic strategy for nmCSPC, either used alone or in combination with ADT in the primary or in the salvage settings. The use of enzalutamide instead of ADT is an appealing strategy. However, more trials will be required to further understand the efficacy and side-effect profile of enzalutamide monotherapy.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in male population worldwide. Since the growth and progression of PC highly depend on the androgen pathway, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay of systemic treatment. Enzalutamide is a second-generation antiandrogen, which is widely used for the treatment of advanced and metastatic PC. However, treatment failure and disease progression, caused by the emergence of enzalutamide resistant phenotypes, remains an important clinical challenge. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are key regulators of gene expression and have recently emerged as potential biomarkers for being stable and easily analysed in several biological fluids. Several miRNAs that exhibit dysregulated expression patterns in enzalutamide-resistant PC have recently been identified, including miRNAs that modulate critical signalling pathways and genes involved in PC growth, survival and in the acquisition of enzalutamide phenotype. The understanding of molecular mechanisms by which miRNAs promote the development of enzalutamide resistance can provide valuable insights into the complex interplay between miRNAs, gene regulation, and treatment response in PC. Moreover, these miRNAs could serve as valuable tools for monitoring treatment response and disease progression during enzalutamide administration. This review summarises the miRNAs associated with enzalutamide resistance in PC already described in the literature, focusing on their biological roles and on their potential as biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE: Abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide are second-generation hormone therapies used for advanced prostate cancer; the majority of patients receiving these treatments are elderly, poly-medicated patients. Since their first market authorizations, their pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics are increasingly well known. A potential risk of drug-drug interaction (DDI), especially with cardiovascular drugs, needs to be considered. In the case of antithrombotics, treatment imbalance can lead to severe consequences.
OBJECTIVE: To describe PK profiles of hormone therapies and antithrombotics and to predict DDIs and potentially related clinical events.
METHODS: PK profiles (CYP450 and P-gp substrate, inducer or inhibitor) are described by cross-referencing data sources (summary of product characteristics, European public assessment reports, PubMed database, Micromedex®, etc.); a description of the potential interactions with anti-cancer drugs for each DDI and related clinical events is provided. We discuss management recommendations, including those set out in international guidelines.
RESULTS: Antithrombotics are mainly metabolized by CYP 2C9, 2C19 or 3A4. For abiraterone (CYP 2C8, 2D6 inhibitor) and darolutamide (CYP 3A4 inducer), no interaction was identified with antithrombotics. For apalutamide (CYP 2C9, 2C19, 3A4 and P-gp inducer) and enzalutamide (CYP 2C9, 2C19, 3A4 inducer and P-gp inhibitor), several PK interactions were identified with antithrombotics, which could lead to various clinical events (haemorrhage or thromboembolism).
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous interactions are expected between enzalutamide or apalutamide and antithrombotics, for which management should be deployed on a case-by-case basis. PK and pharmaco-epidemiological studies could shed light on whether or not there are clinically significant events related to DDIs with antithrombotics.

Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs), namely enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, are good for improving survival outcomes in prostate cancer patients, but some researchers have shown that using SGARIs increases side effects, which complicates clinicians\' choice of. Therefore, we performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and toxicity of several SGARIs in the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to December 2022 to identify randomized controlled studies associated with SGARIs. We use Stata 16.0 and R 4.4.2 for data analysis, hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results.
This meta-analysis included 7 studies with a total of 9488 patients. In mHSPC, enzalutamide and darolutamide had a positive effect on overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82), but we did not find a difference in their efficacy to improve OS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.75-1.89). Also in nmCRPC, enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide were beneficial for metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.41). Compared to darolutamide, enzalutamide (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) and apalutamide (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) prolonged MFS, but there was no difference in efficacy between enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.28). Finally in mCRPC, there was no significant difference in indirect effects on OS between pre- and post-chemotherapy enzalutamide (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). However, using enzalutamide before chemotherapy to improve radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was a better option (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.62-2.73).
The SGARIs used in each trial were beneficial for the primary endpoint in the study. Firstly there was no significant difference in the effect of enzalutamide and darolutamide in improving OS in patients with mHSPC. Secondly improving MFS in patients with nmCRPC was best achieved with enzalutamide and apalutamide. In addition both pre- and post-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide was beneficial for OS in mCRPC patients, but for improving rPFS pre-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide should be preferred.The INPLASY registration number of this systematic review is INPLASY202310084.

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with new antiandrogens have shown to improve the outcomes of patients with hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the efficacy and toxicity of these agents in this specific scenario.
Randomized clinical trials (RCT) were identified after systematic searching of databases. A random-effect model was used to determine the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival according to the inverse-variance method. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for treatment-related adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or higher. Heterogeneity was determined using the Tau 2 and I2 statistics.
Seven trials were included in this meta-analysis ( n  = 7544). The addition of ADT plus new-generation anti-androgens, specifically: abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide was associated with improved OS (pooled HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.71; P  < 0.00001) with no significant heterogeneity detected among trials. (Tau 2  = 0; I2  = 0%; P  = 0.88). Failure-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy group than in the control group (pooled HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.39-0.47; P  < 0.00001) This effect was consistent among trials (Tau 2  = 0; I2  = 27%; P  = 0.22). The overall OR of AEs grade 3 or higher was significantly increased with the use of the combination therapy (pooled OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74; P  = 0.002), with significant heterogeneity among trials (Tau 2  = 0.07; I2  = 82%; P  < 0.0001).
The addition of either abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide to ADT improves OS and failure-free survival in hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, albeit an increase in AEs.

Novel hormonal agents (NHAs) have significantly improved outcomes in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, it remains unclear whether NHAs are associated with subsequent cognitive impairment. Thus, we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of cognitive impairment across NHA types. Databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science), trial registries (Clinicaltrial.gov), the European Medicines Agency, and the US Food and Drug Administration drug safety reports were searched from inception through July 30, 2021. Eligible studies were clinical trials evaluating the risk of cognitive impairment between NHAs and placebo/standard care. Two independent investigators extracted the data and performed quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and ROBINS-I. We estimated the risk ratios by the frequentist approach and calculated the ranking probabilities of all treatments with the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities. The primary outcome and secondary outcome were odds ratio (OR) and incidence rate ratio of cognitive impairment, respectively. We identified 15 trials with 14,723 participants comparing HNAs with placebo/standard care. Treatments associated with cognitive impairment, from the most to the least, were enzalutamide (OR, 3.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.84-4.73), apalutamide (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.08-2.87), abiraterone acetate (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01-2.45), and darolutamide (OR, 1.11 95% CI, 0.51-2.39). After adjustment of treatment time duration, enzalutamide still had the highest risk of cognitive impairment with an incidence rate ratio of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.65-2.78). These findings suggest that NHAs, especially enzalutamide, may increase the risk of cognitive impairment compared with placebo/standard care.

Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are commonly employed in prostate cancer therapy in an interchangeable manner. These drugs are highly efficacious in androgen antagonism to improve patient outcomes, but they also carry noteworthy risk of adverse effects. Common toxicities vary amongst the two drugs and may have differential interactions with patient co-morbidities, but these patterns are unclear as co-morbidities typically serve as exclusion criteria in clinical trials. Hence, there is no existing guidance on how clinicians may tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors. Analysis of differential patient outcomes between these two drugs can inform future systematic reviews, new clinical studies, and clinical decision making.
The framework for this methodology was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Title and abstract screening will be performed by two independent researchers to create an initial study inventory. This will be followed by full-text screening for study inclusion. Population-based studies describing patient outcomes, common toxicities, and associations with patient co-morbidities following abiraterone or enzalutamide therapy will be included. After data is extracted, it will be summarized for presentation.
The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform future studies on patient-specific factors informing treatment choice between abiraterone and enzalutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer. All data are from published openly accessible sources, and therefore, no ethical clearance is necessary. The protocol is also registered at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19149227.

The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
Overall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6-10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.
The current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.

The androgen receptor (AR) is one of the main components in the development and progression of prostate cancer (PCa), and treatment strategies are mostly directed toward manipulation of the AR pathway. In the metastatic setting, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the foundation of treatment in patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). However, treatment response is short-lived, and the majority of patients ultimately progress to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Surmountable data from clinical trials have shown that the maintenance of AR signaling in the castration environment is accountable for disease progression. Study results indicate multiple factors and survival pathways involved in PCa. Based on these findings, the alternative molecular pathways involved in PCa progression can be manipulated to improve current regimens and develop novel treatment modalities in the management of CRPC. In this review, the interaction between AR signaling and other molecular pathways involved in tumor pathogenesis and its clinical implications in metastasis and advanced disease will be discussed, along with a thorough overview of current and ongoing novel treatments for AR signaling inhibition.