Comparison of Endocrine Therapies in Hormone Receptor-Positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer:A Network Meta-Analysis
- Author:
Siqi LIU
1
;
Xin SUN
;
Xiaohui XU
;
Fangcai LIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Review Article
- From:Journal of Breast Cancer 2020;23(5):460-483
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: We aimed to explore what kind of endocrine treatments are optimal for hormone receptorpositive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in some specific clinical situations. We searched randomized controlled trials in Embase, Medline, the Cochrane library, and PubMed from inception to April 1, 2020 and performed a network meta-analysis based on a Bayesian fixed-effects model. Progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence interval was defined as the primary endpoint, while overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and serious adverse events were used as secondary endpoints. A total of 35 studies involving 12,285 patients and 24 treatment options were included. In general, most co-treatment options prolonged PFS compared to single-agent therapy, of which aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus everolimus and fulvestrant plus palbociclib were probably the most effective agents, and the latter had the best safety record. However, despite the superior efficacy of fulvestrant plus capecitabine for PFS and OS, palpable toxic effects have been demonstrated for this treatment, so its application must be scrupulously considered. The results of subgroup analysis indicated that fulvestrant combined with palbociclib improved prognosis for phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-mutated patients, PI3K-unmutated patients, patients with endocrine therapy resistance, and visceral metastatic patients, while no obvious improvement was detected in OS. Moreover, the efficacy of fulvestrant plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors was slightly better than that of AI plus CDK4/6 inhibitors, while AI plus everolimus was more efficacious than fulvestrant combined with everolimus in terms of PFS, OS, and ORR. In conclusion, our results provide moderate evidence that fulvestrant plus palbociclib and AI plus everolimus were the most effective treatments, while the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant plus palbociclib was obviously superior in some specific clinical situations.
