靶向治疗三阴性转移性乳腺癌:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Core Evidence Pub Date : 2014-01-06 eCollection Date: 2014-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CE.S52197
Otávio Clark, Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel, Luciano Paladini, Mariana Bhering Andrade Ferreira
{"title":"靶向治疗三阴性转移性乳腺癌:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Otávio Clark,&nbsp;Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel,&nbsp;Luciano Paladini,&nbsp;Mariana Bhering Andrade Ferreira","doi":"10.2147/CE.S52197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Several databases were searched, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analysis included twelve trials comprising 2,054 patients with TNBC, which compared conventional CT alone against CT combined with targeted therapy (bevacizumab [Bev], sorafenib [Sor], cetuximab, lapatinib, and iniparib). PFS was superior in previously untreated patients with TNBC who received Bev plus CT compared to CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75; P<0.00001). Also, PFS was higher in one study that tested Bev plus CT combination in previously treated patients (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74; P=0.0006). Sor plus CT was also tested as first-line and second-line treatments. The pooled data of PFS favored the combination CT plus Sor (fixed effect, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.98; P=0.04). Comparisons of iniparib plus CT also had a better PFS than CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90; P=0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Targeted therapy, when associated with conventional CT, demonstrated gains in the PFS of patients with TNBC.</p>","PeriodicalId":10764,"journal":{"name":"Core Evidence","volume":"9 ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/CE.S52197","citationCount":"37","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Targeted therapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Otávio Clark,&nbsp;Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel,&nbsp;Luciano Paladini,&nbsp;Mariana Bhering Andrade Ferreira\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CE.S52197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Several databases were searched, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analysis included twelve trials comprising 2,054 patients with TNBC, which compared conventional CT alone against CT combined with targeted therapy (bevacizumab [Bev], sorafenib [Sor], cetuximab, lapatinib, and iniparib). PFS was superior in previously untreated patients with TNBC who received Bev plus CT compared to CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75; P<0.00001). Also, PFS was higher in one study that tested Bev plus CT combination in previously treated patients (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74; P=0.0006). Sor plus CT was also tested as first-line and second-line treatments. The pooled data of PFS favored the combination CT plus Sor (fixed effect, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.98; P=0.04). Comparisons of iniparib plus CT also had a better PFS than CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90; P=0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Targeted therapy, when associated with conventional CT, demonstrated gains in the PFS of patients with TNBC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10764,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Core Evidence\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"1-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/CE.S52197\",\"citationCount\":\"37\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Core Evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CE.S52197\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2014/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Core Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CE.S52197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

摘要

目的:对转移性三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)患者进行靶向治疗与常规化疗(CT)疗效比较的随机对照试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:检索Medline、Embase、LILACS、CENTRAL等数据库。主要终点为无进展生存期(PFS)。我们对发表的数据进行了荟萃分析。结果用风险比(HR)或风险比表示,并给出相应的95%置信区间(95% ci)。结果:最终分析包括12项试验,包括2054例TNBC患者,比较了常规CT单独与CT联合靶向治疗(贝伐单抗[Bev],索拉非尼[Sor],西妥昔单抗,拉帕替尼和伊尼帕里)。未经治疗的TNBC患者接受Bev + CT治疗的PFS优于单独接受CT治疗(固定效应,HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75;结论:当与常规CT相结合时,靶向治疗显示了TNBC患者PFS的增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Targeted therapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Targeted therapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Targeted therapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Targeted therapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Methods: Several databases were searched, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

Results: The final analysis included twelve trials comprising 2,054 patients with TNBC, which compared conventional CT alone against CT combined with targeted therapy (bevacizumab [Bev], sorafenib [Sor], cetuximab, lapatinib, and iniparib). PFS was superior in previously untreated patients with TNBC who received Bev plus CT compared to CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75; P<0.00001). Also, PFS was higher in one study that tested Bev plus CT combination in previously treated patients (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74; P=0.0006). Sor plus CT was also tested as first-line and second-line treatments. The pooled data of PFS favored the combination CT plus Sor (fixed effect, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.98; P=0.04). Comparisons of iniparib plus CT also had a better PFS than CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90; P=0.002).

Conclusion: Targeted therapy, when associated with conventional CT, demonstrated gains in the PFS of patients with TNBC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Core Evidence
Core Evidence PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Core Evidence evaluates the evidence underlying the potential place in therapy of drugs throughout their development lifecycle from preclinical to postlaunch. The focus of each review is to evaluate the case for a new drug or class in outcome terms in specific indications and patient groups The emerging evidence on new drugs is reviewed at key stages of development and evaluated against unmet needs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信