Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is an aggressive histological subtype with poor prognosis. Several first-line treatments are currently available for mTNBC. This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare these first-line regimens and to determine the regimen with the best efficacy.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Bases, and minutes of major conferences was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed via network meta-analysis using the R software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). The efficacy of the treatment regimens was compared using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 29 randomized controlled trials involving 4607 patients were analyzed. The ranking was based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Network meta-analysis results showed that cisplatin combined with nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel was superior to docetaxel plus capecitabine in terms of PFS and ORR. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation-positive tumors, atezolizumab/pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel and talazoparib was superior to docetaxel plus capecitabine. No significant difference was observed among the treatments in OS. Neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue were common serious adverse events.

Conclusion

Cisplatin combined with nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel is the preferred first-line treatment for mTNBC. For PD-L1 and BRCA mutation-positive tumors, atezolizumab/pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel and talazoparib is an effective treatment option. Neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue are frequently occurring serious adverse events.

SUBMITTER: Shi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11002666 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.

Shi Mingqiang M Li Zhoujuan Z Shen Guoshuang G Wang Tianzhuo T Li Jinming J Wang Miaozhou M Liu Zhen Z Zhao Fuxing F Ren Dengfeng D Zhao Jiuda J

Cancer pathogenesis and therapy 20230613 2

<h4>Background</h4>Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is an aggressive histological subtype with poor prognosis. Several first-line treatments are currently available for mTNBC. This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare these first-line regimens and to determine the regimen with the best efficacy.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Bases, and minutes of major conferences was performed. Progression-free sur ...[more]

PMID: 38601487

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTriple-negative breast cancer constitutes approximately 12%-17% of all breast cancer cases, and >33% of patients develop distant metastases. Systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy is the primary treatment for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the role of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients remains controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinical Trials registry databases up to June 1, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated platinum-based vs. first-line platinum-free chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. We used fixed and random effects models to calculate pooled hazard ratios and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for progression-free and overall survival, objective response rates, and grade 3 and 4 adverse events.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (N = 590 patients) were included. Platinum-based chemotherapy significantly increased the objective response rates from 43.1% to 62.7% (odds ratio 2.34, 95% confidence interval 1.66-3.28, P < 0.001). Three randomized controlled trials (N = 414 patients) reported survival outcomes. Patients administered platinum-based regimens showed significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.82, P = 0.004) and a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.00, P = 0.05). Only 2 studies reported the rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events; grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more commonly associated with platinum-based chemotherapy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% confidence interval 1.37-41.60, P = 0.02) and grade 3-4 fatigue with platinum-free chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.68, P = 0.008).ConclusionsFirst-line platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with significantly increased objective response rates, longer progression-free survival, and a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer at the high risk of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment strategy for metastatic or early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has not yet been determined as a result of various randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ICIs in patients with metastatic or early TNBC.MethodsRCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of ICIs in patients with TNBC were included in the studies. Based on PRISMA guidelines, we estimated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models of Bayesian network meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included pathologic complete response rate (pCR), grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (trAEs), immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and grade ≥ 3 irAEs.ResultsThe criteria for eligibility were met by a total of eight RCTs involving 4,589 patients with TNBC. When ICIs were used in patients without programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) selection, there was a trend toward improved PFS, OS, and pCR, without significant differences. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is superior to other treatment regimens in terms of survival for TNBC patients based on Bayesian ranking profiles. Subgroup analysis by PD-L1 positive population indicated similar results, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy provided better survival outcomes. Among grade ≥ 3 trAEs and any grade irAEs, there was no statistically significant difference among different ICI agents. The combination of ICIs with chemotherapy was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Based on rank probability, the ICI plus chemotherapy group was more likely to be associated with grade ≥ 3 trAEs, any grade irAEs, and grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism were the most frequent irAEs in patients receiving ICI.ConclusionsICI regimens had relatively greater efficacy and safety profile. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy seem to be superior first-line treatments for intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive TNBC patients, respectively. It may be useful for making clinical decisions to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different ICIs based on our study.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022354643.

Project description:BackgroundHormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR + /HER2 -) advanced breast cancer is a prevalent subtype among postmenopausal women. Despite the growing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring this topic, the efficacy and safety of first-line and second/further-line treatments remain uncertain. Accordingly, our aim was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of these therapies through network meta-analysis.MethodsRCTs were identified by searching Pubmed, Embase, and major cancer conferences. The efficacy of interventions was assessed using the hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while safety was indicated by the incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs), grade 3-5 AEs, AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, and AEs leading to death. Both time-variant HRs fractional polynomial models and time-invariant HRs Cox-proportional hazards models were considered for handling time-to-event data. Safety indicators were analyzed using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted based on patient characteristics.ResultsA total of 41 RCTs (first-line 17, second/further-lines 27) were included in the analysis. For first-line treatment, the addition of Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors to endocrine therapy significantly improved therapeutic efficacy in terms of both PFS and OS, demonstrating the best performance across all mechanisms. Specifically, the combination of Abemaciclib and Letrozole demonstrated the most favorable performance in terms of PFS, while Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant yielded the best outcomes in OS. Incorporating the immune checkpoint inhibitor Avelumab into the regimen with CDK4/6 inhibitors and selective estrogen receptor degraders significantly enhanced both PFS and OS in second-line or later treatments. Regarding safety, endocrine monotherapy performed well. Regarding safety, endocrine monotherapy performed well. There is mounting evidence suggesting that most CDK4/6 inhibitors may demonstrate poorer performance with respect to hematologic AEs. However, additional evidence is required to further substantiate these findings.ConclusionsCDK4/6 inhibitors, combined with endocrine therapy, are pivotal in first-line treatment due to their superior efficacy and manageable AEs. For second/further-line treatment, adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy may produce promising results. However, to reduce the results' uncertainty, further trials comparing these novel treatments are warranted.Trial registrationRegistration number: PROSPERO (CRD42022377431).

Project description:ContextConsiderable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKIs) and dual immunotherapy (IO-IO) favored. A lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing these treatments means that there is uncertainty regarding their use in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations.Evidence acquisitionMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and abstracts of recent major scientific meetings were searched to identify the most up-to-date phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line IO-based combinations for mRCC up to June 2021. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were completed using the Bayesian framework. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related drug discontinuation (TRDD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The analysis was performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population as well as by clinical risk group.Evidence synthesisA total of six phase 3 RCTs were included involving a total of 5121 patients. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit in the ITT population (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 82%). Avelumab plus axitinib (AVEL-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with favorable risk (65%). Pembrolizumab plus AXI (PEMBRO-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with intermediate risk (78%). PEMBRO plus lenvatinib (PEMBRO-LENV) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with poor risk (89%). PEMBRO-LENV was associated with a superior PFS benefit across all risk groups (89-98%). Maximal ORR was achieved with PEMBRO-LENV (97%). The highest likelihood for CR was attained with NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI; 85%) and PEMBRO-LENV (83%). The highest grade 3-4 TRAE rate occurred with PEMBRO-LENV (95%) and NIVO-CABO (83%), but the latter was associated with the lowest TRDD rate (2%). By contrast, NIVO-IPI had the lowest grade 3-4 TRAE rate (6%) and the highest likelihood of TRDD (100%). HRQoL consistently favored NIVO-CABO (66-75%), PEMBRO-LENV (44-85%), and NIVO-IPI (65-93%) in comparison to the other treatments.ConclusionsIO-TKI drug combinations are associated with consistent improvements in clinically relevant outcomes for all mRCC risk groups. This benefit may be at the cost of higher TRAE rates; however, lower TRDD rates suggest a manageable side-effect profile. Longer follow-up is required to determine if the benefits of IO-TKIs will be sustained and if they should be favored in the first-line treatment of mRCC.Patient summaryCombination treatments based on immunotherapy agents continue to show meaningful benefits in the first-line treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Our review and network meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with another class of agents called tyrosine kinase inhibitors is promising. However, longer follow-up is needed for this treatment strategy to clarify if the benefits are long-lasting.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Efficacy and safety of first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets