Dataset Information

Evaluation of 1-Year vs Shorter Durations of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Among Patients With Early Breast Cancer: An Individual Participant Data and Trial-Level Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The optimum duration of adjuvant trastuzumab among patients with early breast cancer is uncertain but of great therapeutic relevance. Objective:To compare shorter durations with 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with early breast cancer. Data Sources:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2019, for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Study Selection:To be eligible, the trial had to be randomized, compare a shorter duration with 1 year of trastuzumab as adjuvant treatment, and include patients with early breast cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Individual patient data for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted from published survival curves of included RCTs; DFS and OS curves for each trial and the combined population were reconstructed. The DFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from the reconstructed survival curves as well as published estimates. The HR for DFS was used to test noninferiority using the median noninferiority margin of eligible RCTs. This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was DFS; OS and cardiac toxic effects were secondary outcomes. Results:There were 6 eligible RCTs with a median DFS noninferiority margin of 1.3 (range, 1.15-1.53), 5 of which had extractable individual patient data for 11?376 patients, 1659 DFS events, and 871 deaths. For shorter duration vs 1 year of trastuzumab, the 5-year DFS was 85.42% (95% CI, 84.41%-86.38%) vs 87.12% (95% CI, 86.15%-88.02%) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25, 1-sided P for noninferiority?=?.004), and OS was 92.39% (95% CI, 91.61%-93.10%) vs 93.46% (95% CI, 92.73%-94.13%) (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.33). Using trial-level published estimates from 6 RCTs, including 11?603 patients, 1760 DFS events, and 930 deaths, the HR for DFS was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.04-1.26; 1-sided P for noninferiority?=?.002) and, for OS, 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.33). There was significantly less risk of congestive heart failure with shorter-duration trastuzumab (relative risk, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, a shorter duration of adjuvant trastuzumab was noninferior to its 1-year administration and resulted in lower rates of cardiac toxic effects. These results suggest that a shorter duration may be the preferred option for patients with low-risk disease or a predisposition to cardiac toxic effects.

SUBMITTER: Gulia S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7445596 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of 1-Year vs Shorter Durations of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Among Patients With Early Breast Cancer: An Individual Participant Data and Trial-Level Meta-analysis.

Gulia Seema S Kannan Sadhana S Badwe Rajendra R Gupta Sudeep S

JAMA network open 20200803 8

<h4>Importance</h4>The optimum duration of adjuvant trastuzumab among patients with early breast cancer is uncertain but of great therapeutic relevance.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare shorter durations with 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with early breast cancer.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2019, for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs).<h4>Study select ...[more]

PMID: 32833018

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrastuzumab improves survival in HER2+ breast cancer patients, with some evidence of adverse cardiac side effects. Current recommendations are to give adjuvant trastuzumab for one year or until recurrence, although trastuzumab treatment for only 9 or 10 weeks has shown similar survival rates to 12-month treatment. We present here a multi-arm joint analysis examining the relative cost-effectiveness of different durations of adjuvant trastuzumab.Methods and findingsNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) was used to examine which trials' data to include in the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). A network using FinHer (9 weeks vs. zero) and BCIRG006 (12 months vs. zero) trials offered the only jointly randomisable network so these trials were used in the CEA. The 3-arm CEA compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with zero, 9-week and 12-month adjuvant trastuzumab durations in early breast cancer, using a decision tree followed by a Markov model that extrapolated the results to a lifetime time horizon. Pairwise incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated for each pair of regimens and used in budget impact analysis, and the Bucher method was used to check face validity of the findings. Addition of the PHARE trial (6 months vs. 12 months) to the network, in order to create a 4-arm CEA including the 6-month regimen, was not possible as late randomisation in this trial resulted in recruitment of a different patient population as evidenced by the NMA findings. The CEA results suggest that 9 weeks' trastuzumab is cost-saving and leads to more QALYs than 12 months', i.e. the former dominates the latter. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) favours zero trastuzumab at willingness-to-pay levels below £2,500/QALY and treatment for 9 weeks above this threshold. The combination of the NMA and Bucher investigations suggests that the 9-week duration is as efficacious as the 12-month duration for distant-disease-free survival and overall survival, and safer in terms of fewer adverse cardiac events.ConclusionsOur CEA results suggest that 9-week trastuzumab dominates 12-month trastuzumab in cost-effectiveness terms at conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a QALY, and the 9-week regimen is also suggested to be as clinically effective as the 12-month regimen according to the NMA and Bucher analyses. This finding agrees with the results of the E2198 head-to-head study that compared 10 weeks' with 14 months' trastuzumab and found no significant difference. Appropriate trial design and reporting is critical if results are to be synthesisable with existing evidence, as selection bias can lead to recruitment of a different patient population from existing trials. Our analysis was not based on head-to-head trials' data, so the results should be viewed with caution. Short-duration trials would benefit from recruiting larger numbers of participants to reduce uncertainty in the synthesised results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Data repositories have the potential to play an important role in the effective and safe sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. We analysed the current landscape of data repositories to create a detailed description of available repositories and assess their suitability for hosting data from clinical studies, from the perspective of the clinical researcher. METHODS:We assessed repositories that enable storage, sharing, discoverability, re-use of the IPD and associated documents from clinical studies using a pre-defined set of 34 items and publicly available information from April to June 2018. For this purpose, we developed an indicator set to capture the maturity of the repositories' procedures and their suitability for the hosting of IPD. The indicators cover guidelines for data upload and data de-identification, data quality controls, contracts for upload and storage, flexibility of access, application of identifiers, availability of metadata, and long-term preservation. RESULTS:We analysed 25 repositories, from an initial set of 55 identified as possibly relevant. Half of the included repositories were generic, i.e. not limited to a specific disease or clinical area and 13 were launched in the last 8 years. The sample was extremely heterogeneous and included repositories developed by research funders, infrastructures, universities, and editors. All but three repositories do not apply a fee for uploading, storage or access to data. None of the repositories completely demonstrated all the items included in the indicator set, but three repositories (Dryad, Drum, EASY) met - fully or partially - all items. Flexibility of data-access modalities appears to be limited, being lacking in half of the repositories. CONCLUSIONS:Our evaluation, though often hampered by the lack of sufficient information, can help researchers to find a suitable repository for their datasets. Some repositories are more mature because of their support for clinical dataset preparation, contractual agreements, metadata and identifiers, different modalities of access, and long-term preservation of data. Further work is now required to achieve a more robust and accurate system for evaluation, which in turn may encourage the sharing of clinical study data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Study protocol available at https://zenodo.org/record/1438261#.W64kW9Egrcs .

Project description:IntroductionEvidence comparing double-balloon vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double-vs single-balloon catheters using individual participant data.Material and methodsA search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double-balloon with single-balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant-level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two-stage random-effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention-to-treat perspective.ResultsOf the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual-level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double-balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single-balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and single-balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.00, p = 0.050; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21, p = 0.691; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15-2.87, p = 0.571; I2 55.46%; low-certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups.ConclusionsSingle-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of 1-Year vs Shorter Durations of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Among Patients With Early Breast Cancer: An Individual Participant Data and Trial-Level Meta-analysis.

Publications

Evaluation of 1-Year vs Shorter Durations of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Among Patients With Early Breast Cancer: An Individual Participant Data and Trial-Level Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets