Rethinking Comparisons: Novel Strategies for Evaluating Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Prostate Cancer

A panelist discusses how MAIC (Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison) methodology addresses the lack of head-to-head clinical trials in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) by adjusting for differences in patient characteristics across separate studies to enable more reliable indirect treatment comparisons.

A panelist discusses how Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) analyses are limited by potential unmeasured confounding factors, small effective sample sizes after matching, and reliance on published aggregate data, which should be carefully considered when interpreting findings as complementary rather than definitive evidence for treatment decisions.

A panelist discusses how the ARCHES and ARANOTE trials differ in their fundamental design elements, with ARCHES evaluating enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) vs placebo plus ADT in both metastatic and nonmetastatic patients, whereas ARANOTE specifically studied apalutamide plus ADT vs ADT alone in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

A panelist discusses how both the ARCHES and ARANOTE trials demonstrated significant improvements in radiographic progression-free survival with their respective novel hormonal therapies (enzalutamide in ARCHES and apalutamide in ARANOTE) when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, with consistent benefits observed across key subgroups and generally manageable safety profiles.