Clinical benefit, toxicity and cost of metastatic breast cancer therapies: systematic review and meta-analysis
- 377 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsMetastatic breast cancer Network meta-analysis Overall survival Dose-limiting toxicity
There were no funding sources for this work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Linda Vahdat has performed consulting for Berg Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Athenex, and Eisai and has received clinical trial research funding from Genentech and Immunomedics. Dimitris Bertsimas and John Silberholz declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) with NCCN Evidence Blocks™. https://www.nccn.org/EvidenceBlocks/. Accessed 28 December 2016
- 3.Ge L, Tang Y, Zhang Q et al (2017) A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of targeted agents in combination with chemotherapy for treatment of advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Oncotarget 8(35):59539–59551Google Scholar
- 4.Wilson F, Varu A, Mitra D, Cameron C, Iyer S (2017) Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing palbociclib with chemotherapy agents for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166(1):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Silberholz J (2015) Analytics for improved cancer screening and treatment. Dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
- 10.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer, version 2.2016Google Scholar
- 13.Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Statist Soc B 58(1):267–288Google Scholar
- 17.Finn R, Crown J, Lang I et al (2015) The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 16(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Smorenburg CH, de Groot SM, van Leeuwen-Stok AE et al (2014) A randomized phase III study comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of the OMEGA study of the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group BOOG. Ann Oncol 25(3):599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar