To the Editor In a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), Wang et al1 compared the effectiveness and safety in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. As the authors pointed out, this review was updated and informative compared with previous ones in terms of including the most recent ARCHES trial2 and evaluating drug safety. The results of overall survival (OS) for abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, and docetaxel were similar to those in a previous NMA,3 except for enzalutamide, which was suggested to be the most effective treatment in that NMA. The authors1 considered that the difference was caused by including the ARCHES trial,2 which showed no benefit in OS compared with placebo. This could be one major reason; however, we think some other reasons may be worth mentioning.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Funada S, Luo Y, Furukawa TA. Considerations Regarding a Network Meta-analysis of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(7):1068–1069. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0963
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.