John Silberholz1, Dimitris Bertsimas2, Linda Vahdat3. 1. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street R5468, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. josilber@umich.edu. 2. Sloan School of Management, MIT, Operations Research Center, E40-111, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. 3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oncologists, clinical trialists, and guideline developers need tools that enable them to efficiently review the settings and results of previous studies testing metastatic breast cancer (MBC) drug therapies. METHODS: We searched the literature to identify clinical trials testing MBC drug therapies. Key eligibility criteria included at least 90% of patients enrolled in the trial having MBC, therapeutic clinical trials, and Phase II-III studies. Studies were stratified based on patients' tumor receptor statuses and prior exposure to therapy. Survival and toxicity of each drug therapy were estimated from randomized controlled trials using network meta-analysis and from all studies using meta-analysis. These results, along with estimated drug costs, are presented in a web-based visualization tool. RESULTS: We included 1865 studies containing 2676 treatment arms and 184,563 patients in the tool ( http://www.cancertrials.info ). Meta-analysis-based efficacy and toxicity estimates are available for 85 HER-2-directed therapies, 84 hormonal therapies, and 442 undirected therapies. Network meta-analysis-based estimates are available for 16 HER-2-directed therapies, 26 hormonal therapies, and 131 undirected therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In this era of increasing choices of MBC therapeutic agents and no superior approach to choosing a treatment regimen, the ability to compare multiple therapies based on survival, toxicity and cost would enable treating physicians to optimize therapeutic choices for patients. For investigators, it can point them in research directions that were previously non-obvious and for guideline designers, enable them to efficiently review the MBC clinical trial literature and visualize how regimens compare in the key dimensions of clinical benefit, toxicity, and cost.
PURPOSE: Oncologists, clinical trialists, and guideline developers need tools that enable them to efficiently review the settings and results of previous studies testing metastatic breast cancer (MBC) drug therapies. METHODS: We searched the literature to identify clinical trials testing MBC drug therapies. Key eligibility criteria included at least 90% of patients enrolled in the trial having MBC, therapeutic clinical trials, and Phase II-III studies. Studies were stratified based on patients' tumor receptor statuses and prior exposure to therapy. Survival and toxicity of each drug therapy were estimated from randomized controlled trials using network meta-analysis and from all studies using meta-analysis. These results, along with estimated drug costs, are presented in a web-based visualization tool. RESULTS: We included 1865 studies containing 2676 treatment arms and 184,563 patients in the tool ( http://www.cancertrials.info ). Meta-analysis-based efficacy and toxicity estimates are available for 85 HER-2-directed therapies, 84 hormonal therapies, and 442 undirected therapies. Network meta-analysis-based estimates are available for 16 HER-2-directed therapies, 26 hormonal therapies, and 131 undirected therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In this era of increasing choices of MBC therapeutic agents and no superior approach to choosing a treatment regimen, the ability to compare multiple therapies based on survival, toxicity and cost would enable treating physicians to optimize therapeutic choices for patients. For investigators, it can point them in research directions that were previously non-obvious and for guideline designers, enable them to efficiently review the MBC clinical trial literature and visualize how regimens compare in the key dimensions of clinical benefit, toxicity, and cost.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dose-limiting toxicity; Metastatic breast cancer; Network meta-analysis; Overall survival
Authors: C Louwrens Braal; Elisabeth M Jongbloed; Saskia M Wilting; Ron H J Mathijssen; Stijn L W Koolen; Agnes Jager Journal: Drugs Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 9.546