Key Takeaways From an Indirect Comparison of ENZA and DARO in mHSPC

EP: 1.Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in mHSPC

EP: 2.Key Limitations of MAIC Analyses

EP: 3.Study Design: Comparing the ARCHES and ARANOTE trials

Now Viewing

EP: 4.Key Takeaways From an Indirect Comparison of ENZA and DARO in mHSPC

EP: 5.Key Differences Between Enzalutamide and Darolutamide

EP: 6.Deciding on a Treatment Approach for mHSPC

EP: 7.Findings in the Docetaxel-Naive Patient Population

EP: 8.Treatment Decisions in Patients With Low- vs High-Volume Disease

EP: 9.Real-World Experience of ENZA vs DARO

EP: 10.Explaining Study Results to Your Patients

Summary for Physicians: ARCHES and ARANOTE Trial Outcomes

Both the ARCHES and ARANOTE trials demonstrated significant clinical benefits when adding novel hormonal therapies to ADT for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer:

• ARCHES (enzalutamide + ADT): Significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival
• ARANOTE (apalutamide + ADT): Significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival

Key findings across both trials:

• Consistent benefits observed across major patient subgroups
• Generally manageable safety profiles

These results support the addition of novel hormonal agents to ADT in the management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.