Study Design: Comparing the ARCHES and ARANOTE trials

EP: 1.Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in mHSPC

EP: 2.Key Limitations of MAIC Analyses

Now Viewing

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

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: Limitations of MAIC Analyses

Summary for Physicians: ARCHES vs. ARANOTE Trial Designs

The ARCHES and ARANOTE trials differ substantially in their fundamental design elements:

ARCHES Trial:

• Evaluated enzalutamide plus ADT vs placebo plus ADT
• Included both metastatic and nonmetastatic patient populations

ARANOTE Trial:

• Evaluated apalutamide plus ADT vs ADT alone
• Specifically focused on patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer only

These design differences should be considered when interpreting and comparing results between these 2 androgen receptor pathway inhibitor trials.