34. TARGETED THERAPY FOR HER2-POSITIVE BREAST CANCER BRAIN METASTASES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRO One in three women with HER2-positive breast cancer will develop brain metastases, or intracranial metastatic disease (IMD). Historically, treatment of IMD has been confined to surgery and radiotherapy, with a limited role for chemotherapy. However, recent interest has burgeoned in a role for targeted therapy for treatment of IMD. The lack of high-level evidence, such as meta-analyses, regarding the role of targeted therapy in the management of IMD has prevented its inclusion in guidelines directing treatment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the role of targeted therapy for IMD in women with HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS Following PRISMA guidelines, a search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources was conducted by two independent reviewers. Controlled trials and cohort studies that reported survival, safety, or response outcomes for patients receiving HER2-targeted therapy following IMD diagnosis were included. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were conducted for OS and PFS. RESULTS 111 studies reporting on 8226 patients were included. Primary analysis of only RCTs found that HER2-targeted therapy was associated with improved OS (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.86; n = 392) but not PFS (HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.30–1.85; n = 392) following IMD diagnosis. Secondary analysis combining RCTs and comparative observational studies found that HER2-targeted therapy was associated with improved OS (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.35–0.51; n = 2756) but not PFS (HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.27–1.21; n = 460) following IMD diagnosis. Full analysis will be conducted for all 111 studies for pre-specified outcomes including intracranial PFS. CONCLUSION These findings support a potential role for HER2-targeted therapy in the management of IMD from HER2-positive breast cancer. Final analysis will synthesize current evidence for outcomes of intracranial response, survival, and safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".