Interpreting Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Prostate Cancer Research

In this segment, Dr. Graham and Dr. Sokolova address the role of matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) in interpreting evidence across prostate cancer studies, using examples from metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The discussion focuses on why clinicians encounter MAIC analyses in practice and how these methods attempt to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics across trials when direct head-to-head data are unavailable. Dr. Graham emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying assumptions and methodological limitations of MAIC, including residual confounding and differences in study design that cannot be fully accounted for. Both experts stress that MAIC results should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence. The segment reinforces the need for cautious interpretation and highlights that clinical decisions should continue to rely on the totality of evidence, guideline recommendations, and clinical judgment when managing patients with prostate cancer.