Endocrine therapy-based treatments in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Issue 4 (26th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Brandão, Mariana; Maurer, Christian; Ziegelmann, Patricia Klarmann; Pondé, Noam F; Ferreira, Arlindo; Martel, Samuel; Piccart, Martine; de Azambuja, Evandro; Debiasi, Márcio; Lambertini, Matteo
• Is Part Of: ESMO open. Volume 5:Issue 4(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-08-26
• Subjects: breast neoplasms -- molecular targeted therapy -- systematic review -- network meta-analysis -- endocrine therapy; Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000842
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2059-7029

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Several endocrine therapy (ET)-based treatments are available for patients with advanced breast cancer. We assessed the efficacy of different ET-based treatments in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with endocrine-sensitive or endocrine-resistant disease. Methods: We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 15 October 2019 and abstracts from major conferences from 2016 to October 2019. We included phase II/III randomised trials, comparing ≥2 ET-based treatments. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by network meta-analyses using MTC Bayesian models based on both fixed-effect and random-effect models; relative treatment effects were measured as HRs and 95% credibility intervals (CrI). All statistical tests were two-sided. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and this systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database. Results: 55 publications reporting on 32 trials (n=12 293 patients) were included. Regarding PFS in the endocrine sensitive setting (n=5200; 12 trials), the combination of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i)+fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) was likely the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)=97.3%), followed by CDK4/6i+aromatase inhibitor ±goserelin; there was no significant difference between them (HR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.54–1.25). Regarding OS (n=2157; five trials), the most effective treatment was probably CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=97.3%); comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.63–0.95). Regarding PFS in the endocrine-resistant setting (n=6635; 20 trials), CDK4/6i+F500 was likely the most effective treatment (SUCRA=95.7%), followed by capivasertib+F500, without significant difference between them (HR 0.91; 95% CrI 0.60–1.36). For OS (n=4377; 11 trials), the most effective treatments were capivasertib+F500 (SUCRA=84.7%) and CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=69.9%). Comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.67–0.89). Conclusions: CDK4/6i+F500 is likely the best treatment option in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant diseases for PFS, and in endocrine-sensitive patients for OS. Concerning OS in endocrine-resistant patients, capivasertib+F500 and CDK4/6i+F500 are likely the best treatments. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018104628.