Wolfgang Janni , Michael Untch , Nadia Harbeck , Joseph Gligorov , William Jacot , Stephen Chia , Jean-François Boileau , Subhajit Gupta , Namita Mishra , Murat Akdere , Andriy Danyliv , Giuseppe Curigliano
{"title":"Systematic literature review and trial-level meta-analysis of aromatase inhibitors vs tamoxifen in patients with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer","authors":"Wolfgang Janni , Michael Untch , Nadia Harbeck , Joseph Gligorov , William Jacot , Stephen Chia , Jean-François Boileau , Subhajit Gupta , Namita Mishra , Murat Akdere , Andriy Danyliv , Giuseppe Curigliano","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2025.104429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Current standard of care for patients with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer (EBC) includes adjuvant endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen (TAM). We present a trial-level meta-analysis on efficacy of AI vs TAM in patients with HR+/HER2− EBC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic literature review was conducted using key medical literature databases (eg, PubMed; inception to October 2023) and data from conferences (to December 2023). Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had ≥80 % of patients with HR+/HER2− EBC (or available subgroup data) and reported a disease-free survival (DFS) hazard ratio for AI vs TAM were included in the meta-analysis, regardless of menopausal status and ovarian function suppression (OFS) use. The generic invariance method was used to calculate a pooled effect estimate of DFS hazard ratios and 95 % CIs. A base-case analysis (all RCTs) and scenario analyses for NSAI-only, premenopausal, and postmenopausal RCTs were conducted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five RCTs were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. In the base-case analysis, DFS significantly favored AI ± OFS vs TAM ± OFS (pooled hazard ratio, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.61–0.76; <em>P</em> < .0001). Results from scenario analyses were consistent with the base case; NSAI-only (pooled hazard ratio, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.59–0.78; <em>P</em> < .0001), premenopausal (pooled hazard ratio, 0.65; 95 % CI, 0.56–0.76; <em>P</em> < .0001), and postmenopausal (pooled hazard ratio, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.61–0.86; <em>P</em> = .001) RCTs favored AI ± OFS over TAM ± OFS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This trial-level meta-analysis demonstrated a significant DFS benefit with AI vs TAM for patients with HR+/HER2− EBC, which was more pronounced in premenopausal women.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 104429"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977625000487","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Current standard of care for patients with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer (EBC) includes adjuvant endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen (TAM). We present a trial-level meta-analysis on efficacy of AI vs TAM in patients with HR+/HER2− EBC.
Methods
A systematic literature review was conducted using key medical literature databases (eg, PubMed; inception to October 2023) and data from conferences (to December 2023). Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had ≥80 % of patients with HR+/HER2− EBC (or available subgroup data) and reported a disease-free survival (DFS) hazard ratio for AI vs TAM were included in the meta-analysis, regardless of menopausal status and ovarian function suppression (OFS) use. The generic invariance method was used to calculate a pooled effect estimate of DFS hazard ratios and 95 % CIs. A base-case analysis (all RCTs) and scenario analyses for NSAI-only, premenopausal, and postmenopausal RCTs were conducted.
Results
Five RCTs were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. In the base-case analysis, DFS significantly favored AI ± OFS vs TAM ± OFS (pooled hazard ratio, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.61–0.76; P < .0001). Results from scenario analyses were consistent with the base case; NSAI-only (pooled hazard ratio, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.59–0.78; P < .0001), premenopausal (pooled hazard ratio, 0.65; 95 % CI, 0.56–0.76; P < .0001), and postmenopausal (pooled hazard ratio, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.61–0.86; P = .001) RCTs favored AI ± OFS over TAM ± OFS.
Conclusions
This trial-level meta-analysis demonstrated a significant DFS benefit with AI vs TAM for patients with HR+/HER2− EBC, which was more pronounced in premenopausal women.
期刊介绍:
The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.