Outcomes Following Abiraterone versus Enzalutamide for Prostate Cancer: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are commonly used for metastatic prostate cancer. It is unclear how their outcomes and toxicities vary with patient-specific factors because clinical trials typically exclude patients with significant comorbidities. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap and facilitate informed treatment decision making. A registered protocol utilizing PRISMA scoping review methodology was utilized to identify real-world studies. Of 433 non-duplicated publications, 23 were selected by three independent reviewers. ENZ offered a faster and more frequent biochemical response (30-50% vs. 70-75%), slowed progression (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50-0.88), and improved overall survival versus AA. ENZ was associated with more fatigue and neurological adverse effects. Conversely, AA increased risk of cardiovascular- (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.09-3.05) and heart failure-related (HR 2.88; 95% CI 1.09-7.63) hospitalizations. Ultimately, AA was associated with increased length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.04-1.53). Accordingly, total costs were higher for AA, although pharmacy costs alone were higher for ENZ. Existing data suggest that AA and ENZ have important differences in outcomes including toxicities, response, disease progression, and survival. Additionally, adherence, healthcare utilization, and costs differ. Further investigation is warranted to inform treatment decisions which optimize patient outcomes.

Keywords: abiraterone acetate; androgen deprivation; cancer outcomes; enzalutamide; healthcare resource utilization; novel hormonal therapy; prostate cancer; treatment choice; urologic oncology.

Figure 1

PRISMA Flow Chart of studies included in the scoping review. AA = abiraterone acetate; Enz = enzalutamide.