Abstract PO1-06-03: Efficacy of First-line Treatments for Hormone Receptor-positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis Feasibility Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: A comprehensive summary of clinical evidence for first-line (1L) treatments for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HR+/HER2+) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is needed to understand which treatments have been evaluated and the outcomes associated with different treatments. Understanding the available clinical evidence for HR+/HER2+ mBC 1L treatments can also inform the feasibility of network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate relative treatment effects where head-to-head trials are not available. The objective was to prepare a systematic summary of clinical trials of 1L treatments for HR+/HER2+ mBC and assess the feasibility of NMAs for key efficacy outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical trials evaluating 1L treatments for adults with HR+/HER2+ mBC published between January 2000 and January 2023 were identified via predefined searches of databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library), relevant congress proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov (updating a previous SLR covering January 2000 to December 2020). Study design characteristics, patient characteristics, and efficacy outcomes were extracted from identified trials. An NMA feasibility assessment that considered network connectivity and cross-study heterogeneity was conducted for four efficacy outcomes of interest: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR). Results: After screening, 37 records reporting on 23 unique studies (11 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 12 single-arm trials; 35 study arms in total) were selected. Included trials were mostly phase II or phase III multi-country studies that evaluated a HR+ or HER2+ population, with outcomes being reported for the subgroup of patients with the HR+/HER2+ subtype. Treatments evaluated included one or two anti-HER2 therapies (AHTs) + endocrine therapy (ET) (5/35 study arms), AHTs + chemotherapy (CT) (20/35), AHTs + ET + CT (2/35), AHTs alone (5/35), and ET alone (3/35). For HR+/HER2+ patients, PFS and OS were reported by 17/23 and 10/23 studies, respectively. Reported median PFS and OS ranged from 2.4-23.7 months and 23.9-66.7 months, respectively. Among the 11 included RCTs, hazard ratios and/or Kaplan-Meier curves, which were considered a requirement for NMAs for time to event outcomes, were reported for PFS and OS by 9 and 6 studies, respectively. Among these studies, reported median PFS and OS ranged from 2.4-19.2 months and 23.9-57.9 months, respectively. For HR+/HER2+ patients, ORR and CBR were reported by 13/23 and 6/23 studies, respectively. Assuming all CTs could be considered equivalent treatments and all ETs could be considered equivalent treatments, NMAs involving networks of 9, 6, 6, and 3 treatments were feasible for PFS, OS, ORR, and CBR, respectively. Some patient characteristics including time since mBC diagnosis and proportion with bone metastases were not reported consistently across trials. However, included studies were broadly comparable based on study design characteristics, outcome definitions and other reported patient characteristics such as age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Conclusion: Clinical trials in 1L HR+/HER2+ mBC have evaluated various combinations of AHTs, CTs, and ETs, with most study arms being AHTs + CT. Although efficacy outcomes of interest were not consistently reported across trials, NMAs were found to be feasible for PFS, OS, ORR, and CBR based on available data. Citation Format: Priyanka Sharma, Chau Dang, Christopher Drudge, Amrita Debnath, Manvir Rai, Eric Gauthier, Edward Broughton. Efficacy of First-line Treatments for Hormone Receptor-positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis Feasibility Assessment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-06-03.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,071 | 0,137 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,042 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».