Sciarra Alessandro, Fasulo Andrea, Ciardi Antonio, Petrangeli Elisa, Gentilucci Alessandro, Maggi Martina, Innocenzi Michele, Pierella Federico, Gentile Vincenzo, Salciccia Stefano, Cattarino Susanna
Department of Urological Sciences, University Sapienza, Rome Statistics Institute, Rome Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, University Sapienza, Rome Department of Experimental Medicine, University Sapienza, Rome.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(27):e3845. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003845.
Our aim was to systematically evaluate the benefits of degarelix as antagonist versus agonists of gonadotropin-releasing hormones (GnRH) for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC). This comparison was performed either in terms of biochemical or oncological or safety profiles. To this end we, carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.We selected only studies directly and prospectively analyzing the two treatments in the same population (randomized phase III studies). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses process for reporting studies.After we eliminated studies according to the exclusion criteria, 9 publications were considered relevant to this review. These articles described 5 clinical trials that were eligible for inclusion. The follow-up duration in all trials did not exceed 364 days. This meta-analysis and review comprised a total of 1719 men, 1061 randomized to degarelix versus 658 to GnRH agonists treatment for advanced PC. Oncological results were evaluated only in 1 trial (CS21:408 cases) and they were not the primary endpoints of the study. Treatment emerging adverse events were reported in 61.4% and 58.8% of patients in the degarelix and GnRH agonists group, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 0.78-1.77, P > 0.1). Treatment related severe cardiovascular side effects were reported (trial CS21-30-35) in 1.6% and 3.6% of patients in the degarelix and GnRH agonists group, respectively (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.26-1.14, P > 0.1).Our analysis evidences relevant limitations in particular for the comparative evaluation of the efficacy and the oncological results related to degarelix.
我们的目的是系统评估地加瑞克作为促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂与激动剂在治疗晚期前列腺癌(PC)方面的益处。这种比较是在生化、肿瘤学或安全性方面进行的。为此,我们对文献进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们仅选择直接且前瞻性地分析同一人群中两种治疗方法的研究(随机III期研究)。我们遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目流程来报告研究。根据排除标准剔除研究后,9篇出版物被认为与本综述相关。这些文章描述了5项符合纳入标准的临床试验。所有试验的随访时间均不超过364天。这项荟萃分析和综述共纳入1719名男性,其中1061名随机接受地加瑞克治疗,658名接受GnRH激动剂治疗以用于晚期PC。仅在1项试验(CS21:408例)中评估了肿瘤学结果,且它们并非该研究的主要终点。地加瑞克组和GnRH激动剂组分别有61.4%和58.8%的患者报告了治疗中出现的不良事件(优势比,OR = 1.17;95%置信区间,95%CI:0.78 - 1.77,P>0.1)。在试验CS21 - 30 - 35中,地加瑞克组和GnRH激动剂组分别有1.6%和3.6%的患者报告了与治疗相关的严重心血管副作用(OR = 0.55,95%CI:0.26 - 1.14,P>0.1)。我们的分析证明了存在相关局限性,特别是在地加瑞克疗效和肿瘤学结果的比较评估方面。