Literature DB >> 34193107

Network meta-analysis of eribulin versus other chemotherapies used as second- or later-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Qi Zhao1, Rachel Hughes2, Binod Neupane3, Kristin Mickle4, Yun Su5, Isabelle Chabot6, Marissa Betts4, Ananth Kadambi7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate (ERI; Halaven®) is a microtubule inhibitor approved in the United States for metastatic breast cancer patients with at least two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and in the European Union in locally advanced breast cancer or metastatic breast cancer patients who progressed after at least one chemotherapy for advanced disease. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ERI versus other chemotherapies in this setting.
METHODS: Systematic searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials identified randomized controlled trials of locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer chemotherapies in second- or later-line settings. Efficacy assessment included pre-specified subgroup analysis of breast cancer subtypes. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis estimated primary outcomes of overall survival and progression-free survival using fixed-effect models. Comparators included: capecitabine (CAP), gemcitabine (GEM), ixabepilone (IXA), utidelone (UTI), treatment by physician's choice (TPC), and vinorelbine (VIN).
RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included seven trials. Results showed that second- or later-line patients treated with ERI had statistically longer overall survival versus TPC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; credible interval [CrI]: 0.66-0.99) or GEM+VIN (0.62; 0.42-0.90) and statistically longer progression-free survival versus TPC (0.76; 0.64-0.90), but statistically shorter progression-free survival versus CAP+IXA (1.40; 1.17-1.67) and CAP+UTI (1.61; 1.23-2.12). In triple negative breast cancer, ERI had statistically longer overall survival versus CAP (0.70; 0.54-0.90); no statistical differences in progression-free survival were observed in triple negative breast cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis suggests that ERI may provide an overall survival benefit in the overall locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer populations and triple negative breast cancer subgroup compared to standard treatments. These findings support the use of ERI in second- or later-line treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Locally advanced; Metastatic; Network meta-analysis; Triple negative breast cancer, overall survival

Year:  2021        PMID: 34193107     DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08446-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Cancer        ISSN: 1471-2407            Impact factor:   4.430


  27 in total

Review 1.  Management of locally advanced breast cancer-perspectives and future directions.

Authors:  Konstantinos Tryfonidis; Elzbieta Senkus; Maria J Cardoso; Fatima Cardoso
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: second line and beyond.

Authors:  H Roché; L T Vahdat
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 32.976

3.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

Authors:  Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Eribulin mesylate in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Sarika Jain; Tessa Cigler
Journal:  Biologics       Date:  2012-01-01

6.  Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane.

Authors:  Peter A Kaufman; Ahmad Awada; Chris Twelves; Louise Yelle; Edith A Perez; Galina Velikova; Martin S Olivo; Yi He; Corina E Dutcus; Javier Cortes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Subgroup analysis of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second-line setting from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study of eribulin mesilate versus capecitabine.

Authors:  Xavier Pivot; Seock Ah Im; Matthew Guo; Frederik Marmé
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 4.239

8.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons.

Authors:  G Lu; A E Ades
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence.

Authors:  Deborah M Caldwell; A E Ades; J P T Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-15

10.  Health-related quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin mesylate or capecitabine in an open-label randomized phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Javier Cortes; Stacie Hudgens; Chris Twelves; Edith A Perez; Ahmad Awada; Louise Yelle; Susan McCutcheon; Peter A Kaufman; Anna Forsythe; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.