BACKGROUND: In early breast cancer treatment, the preferred surgical regimen remains a topic of controversy, and conventional pairwise meta-analysis cannot provide a hierarchy based on clinical trial evidence. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was performed both for direct and indirect comparisons and to assess the survival outcomes of surgical regimens. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials comparing different surgical regimens for the treatment of early breast cancer were identified. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were analyzed using random-effects network meta-analysis on the hazard ratio (HR) scale and calculated as combined HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis compared 11 different surgical regimens that consisted of 13 and 17 direct comparisons between strategies for OS (34 trials; n = 23 587 patients) and DFS (32 trials; n = 22 552 patients), respectively. The values of surface under the cumulative ranking for OS and DFS after mastectomy (M)+radiotherapy (RT) were observed to be the largest. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS)+axillary node sampling+RT almost achieved the threshold for inferiority compared with the other surgical treatment arms and was statistically significantly associated with worse OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.94; HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.92; HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference between BCS+sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)+RT vs BCS+SLNB+intraoperative RT was observed in carrying out network meta-analysis (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.36). CONCLUSIONS: M+RT has the most favorable survival outcomes among the various surgical regimens for the treatment of early breast cancer patients. For patients who receive BCS, SNLB has more favorable outcomes than axillary node sampling. Intraoperative RT and postoperative RT have similar outcomes in patients who receive SLNB.
BACKGROUND: In early breast cancer treatment, the preferred surgical regimen remains a topic of controversy, and conventional pairwise meta-analysis cannot provide a hierarchy based on clinical trial evidence. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was performed both for direct and indirect comparisons and to assess the survival outcomes of surgical regimens. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials comparing different surgical regimens for the treatment of early breast cancer were identified. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were analyzed using random-effects network meta-analysis on the hazard ratio (HR) scale and calculated as combined HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis compared 11 different surgical regimens that consisted of 13 and 17 direct comparisons between strategies for OS (34 trials; n = 23 587 patients) and DFS (32 trials; n = 22 552 patients), respectively. The values of surface under the cumulative ranking for OS and DFS after mastectomy (M)+radiotherapy (RT) were observed to be the largest. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS)+axillary node sampling+RT almost achieved the threshold for inferiority compared with the other surgical treatment arms and was statistically significantly associated with worse OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.94; HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.92; HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference between BCS+sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)+RT vs BCS+SLNB+intraoperative RT was observed in carrying out network meta-analysis (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.36). CONCLUSIONS: M+RT has the most favorable survival outcomes among the various surgical regimens for the treatment of early breast cancerpatients. For patients who receive BCS, SNLB has more favorable outcomes than axillary node sampling. Intraoperative RT and postoperative RT have similar outcomes in patients who receive SLNB.
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R D Macmillan; D Barbera; D J Hadjiminas; R S Rampaul; A H Lee; S E Pinder; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J G Geraghty Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: U Veronesi; E Marubini; L Mariani; V Galimberti; A Luini; P Veronesi; B Salvadori; R Zucali Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: L A Newman; H M Kuerer; K K Hunt; G Singh; F C Ames; B W Feig; M I Ross; S Taylor; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1999 Apr-May Impact factor: 5.344