scholarly journals Increased life expectancy as a result of non-hormonal targeted therapies for HER2 or hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 16-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rositsa G. Koleva-Kolarova ◽  
Monika P. Oktora ◽  
Annelies L. Robijn ◽  
Marcel J.W. Greuter ◽  
Anna K.L. Reyners ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

Endocrine therapy-based strategies with different endocrine sensitivity statuses for hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1062-1062
Author(s):  
Jiani Wang ◽  
Yiqun Han ◽  
Jiayu Wang ◽  
Binghe Xu
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Therapy Resistance ◽  
Optimal Treatment ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Direct Head

1062 Background: Novel endocrine therapies (ETs) and targeted therapeutic regimens have been developed to dramatically improve the outcome of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Since the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons for all regimens, decision-making guidelines are urgently needed for different endocrine sensitivity statuses. This study is to evaluate the efficacy of ET-based regimens in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC and to assess the heterogeneity among different compounds with a particular focus on their ability to improve survival outcomes. Methods: This network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one ET in HR+/HER2- MBC were enrolled. Based on the endocrine responses, participants were stratified into endocrine therapy sensitivity (ETS) and endocrine therapy resistance (ETR) groups. Primary endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), were assessed by bayesian algorithms and primarily measured as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 42 trials (22917 patients) were included. Regarding PFS, cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) +fulvestrant 500mg (F500) was recommended for the ETS group (SUCRA = 76.92%), while chemotherapy was considered as the most effective option for the ETR group (SUCRA = 73.47%). For visceral metastases, CDK4/6i +aromatase inhibitors (AIs) could provide the extreme efficacy for the ETS group (SUCRA = 63.27%) while the CDK4/6i +F500 (SUCRA = 76.17%) as the prior regimen for the ETR group. For bone-only disease, CDK4/6i+F500 was preferred for both the ETS (SUCRA = 67.04%) and the ETR (SUCRA = 70.24%) group. Concerning OS, CDK4/6i+tamoxifen was estimated as the first-rank regimen for the ETS subgroup (SUCRA = 67.04%) and chemotherapy for the ETR subgroup (SUCRA = 60.02%). Regarding resistance category, abemaciclib +F500 was likely the best option with PFS, for both primary (SUCRA = 69.19%) and secondary ETR (SUCRA = 69.09%) settings, as well as primary ETR associated with OS improvement (SUCRA = 67.67%). Pictilisib +F500 could be the optimal treatment with OS for secondary ETR (SUCRA = 60.50%)group. Conclusions: The results showed that CDK4/6i + F500 was probably the most promising option in ETS, visceral ETR and bone-only disease settings in terms of PFS. OS subgroup analysis showed that different endocrine sensitivity statuses required various optimal treatment strategies.

A network meta-analysis of fulvestrant vs alternative first-line endocrine therapies for endocrine therapy-naive postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12545-e12545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Telford ◽  
Shweta Takyar ◽  
Parth Joshi ◽  
Mattias Ekman ◽  
Nick Jones
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
First Line ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
American Society

e12545 Background: Fulvestrant (F) is a selective estrogen degrader for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). This network meta-analysis examined the efficacy of F (500 mg) vs alternative endocrine therapies (ETs) for first-line treatment of ET-naïve HR+ LA/MBC. Methods: Randomized controlled trials of first-line F, tamoxifen (Tam), anastrozole (A), exemestane (E), letrozole (L), and toremifene (T) for women (≥18 years) with HR+ LA/MBC and no prior ET were identified in a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to October 2016. Conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from 2013-2016 were hand searched. Trials of targeted combination therapies were excluded. Studies were checked for heterogeneity. A standard fixed-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted based on hazard ratios (HRs) and assuming proportional hazards for progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Results: Seven eligible studies (1 Phase [Ph] 2, 5 Ph 3, 1 Ph 2/3) were identified. All had PFS data; five had OS data. Two trials compared F vs A; PFS data were available for both trials; sufficiently mature OS data for F were available from Ph 2 only. The proportional hazards assumption was met for PFS only.F had significantly improved PFS vs Tam (HR 0.57, 95% credibility interval [Crl] 0.44-0.73), A (HR 0.75, 95% Crl 0.62-0.91), E (HR 0.65, 95% Crl 0.47-0.91), and T (HR 0.53, 95% Crl 0.37-0.78). Numerically improved PFS was observed for F vs L (HR 0.81, 95% Crl 0.59-1.11). F had significantly improved OS vs Tam (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.40-0.98), A (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.42-0.94), and E (HR 0.56, 95% Crl 0.33-0.95). OS was numerically improved with F vs L (HR 0.66, 95% Crl 0.41-1.04). Conclusions: This analysis suggests improved PFS and OS for fulvestrant vs tamoxifen, anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole, and PFS for fulvestrant vs toremifene. Further analysis should be conducted, using non-proportional hazard methods and more mature OS data, to confirm the OS results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document