Table 2.
Studies reporting HRs for OS.
| No. | Study name | Sample size | Adjusted a (Y/N) | HR (95% CI) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marar et al., 2022 b | 3808 | Y | 1.21 (1.06–1.38) | ABI vs ENZA |
| 2 | Tagawa et al., 2021 | 3174 | Y | 0.84 (0.76–0.94) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 3 | Soleimani et al., 2021 | 270 | Y | 0.91 (0.70–1.19) | ABI vs ENZA |
| 4 | Scailteux et al., 2021 | 10,308 | Y | 0.90 (0.85–0.96) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 5 | Lopez-Campos et al., 2021 | 511 | N | 1.4 (1.04–1.89) | ABI vs ENZA |
| 6 | Carvajal et al., 2021 c | 100 | N | 1.27 (0.64–2.51) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 7 | Chowdhury et al., 2020 | 3003 | Y | 1.00 (0.79–1.27) | ABI vs ENZA |
| 8 | Komura et al., 2019 | 184 | Y | 0.86 (0.50–1.48) | ABI vs ENZA |
| 9 | Cesca et al., 2019 | 120 | Y | 0.66 (0.27–1.63) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 10 | Schoen et al., 2022 | 5822 | Y | 0.89 (0.84–0.95) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 11 | Chen et al., 2023 | 363 | Y | 0.68 (0.41–1.14) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 12 | An et al., 2023 | 3808 | Y | 0.96 (0.9–1.06) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 13 | Li et al., 2022 | 324 | N | 0.93 (0.54–1.62) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 14 | Alkan et al., 2021 | 134 | N | 0.87 (0.48–1.56) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 15 | Uchimoto et al., 2021 | 254 | Y | 1.55 (0.88–2.77) | ABI vs ENZA |
| 16 | Baillie et al., 2021 | 271 | N | 1.14 (0.68–1.91) | ENZA vs ABI |
| 17 | Oruc et al., 2021 | 191 | N | 0.77 (0.32–1.88) | ENZA vs ABI |
a
Studies considered “adjusted” were those that reported adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.
b
HR for ABI vs ENZA for non-Hispanic White men.
c
Carvajal et al., 2021 presented a Kaplan–Meier curve that was digitized to obtain pseudo-individual patient data followed by HR based on the Cox proportional hazards model.
ABI, abiraterone; CI, confidence interval; ENZA, enzalutamide; HR, hazard ratio; N, No; OS, overall survival; Y, Yes.