Cargando…

A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, is approved for first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fulvestrant 500 mg in postme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robertson, John F. R., Jiang, Zefei, Di Leo, Angelo, Ohno, Shinji, Pritchard, Kathleen I., Ellis, Matthew, Bradbury, Ian, Campbell, Christine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Japan 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6821663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31079343
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00973-4
_version_ 1783464168068743168
author Robertson, John F. R.
Jiang, Zefei
Di Leo, Angelo
Ohno, Shinji
Pritchard, Kathleen I.
Ellis, Matthew
Bradbury, Ian
Campbell, Christine
author_facet Robertson, John F. R.
Jiang, Zefei
Di Leo, Angelo
Ohno, Shinji
Pritchard, Kathleen I.
Ellis, Matthew
Bradbury, Ian
Campbell, Christine
author_sort Robertson, John F. R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, is approved for first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive ABC, to evaluate differences in clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of patients experiencing best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease for ≥ 24 weeks) between fulvestrant 500 mg and comparator endocrine therapies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for CBR were calculated; fixed effects (FE) models were constructed (first- and second-line data, alone and combined). RESULTS: Six RCTs were included. Four studies evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. fulvestrant 250 mg; two evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. anastrozole 1 mg. In total, 1054 and 534 patients were included (first- and second-line treatment, respectively). Analysis of OR and 95% CI of CBR by therapy line favored fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator therapy. Assessing all results combined in the FE model indicated significant improvement in CBR with fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.13–1.57; p = 0.001). Restricting the FE model to therapy line demonstrated significant improvement in CBR vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02–1.73; p = 0.035) for first-line, and a trend to improvement vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.90–1.79; p = 0.174) for second-line. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive ABC, fulvestrant 500 mg first-line was associated with significantly greater CBR (more patients benefiting from treatment) vs. comparator endocrine therapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6821663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Japan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68216632019-11-06 A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer Robertson, John F. R. Jiang, Zefei Di Leo, Angelo Ohno, Shinji Pritchard, Kathleen I. Ellis, Matthew Bradbury, Ian Campbell, Christine Breast Cancer Original Article BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, is approved for first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive ABC, to evaluate differences in clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of patients experiencing best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease for ≥ 24 weeks) between fulvestrant 500 mg and comparator endocrine therapies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for CBR were calculated; fixed effects (FE) models were constructed (first- and second-line data, alone and combined). RESULTS: Six RCTs were included. Four studies evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. fulvestrant 250 mg; two evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. anastrozole 1 mg. In total, 1054 and 534 patients were included (first- and second-line treatment, respectively). Analysis of OR and 95% CI of CBR by therapy line favored fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator therapy. Assessing all results combined in the FE model indicated significant improvement in CBR with fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.13–1.57; p = 0.001). Restricting the FE model to therapy line demonstrated significant improvement in CBR vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02–1.73; p = 0.035) for first-line, and a trend to improvement vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.90–1.79; p = 0.174) for second-line. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive ABC, fulvestrant 500 mg first-line was associated with significantly greater CBR (more patients benefiting from treatment) vs. comparator endocrine therapy. Springer Japan 2019-05-11 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6821663/ /pubmed/31079343 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00973-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Robertson, John F. R.
Jiang, Zefei
Di Leo, Angelo
Ohno, Shinji
Pritchard, Kathleen I.
Ellis, Matthew
Bradbury, Ian
Campbell, Christine
A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
title A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
title_full A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
title_fullStr A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
title_full_unstemmed A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
title_short A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
title_sort meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6821663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31079343
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00973-4
work_keys_str_mv AT robertsonjohnfr ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT jiangzefei ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT dileoangelo ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT ohnoshinji ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT pritchardkathleeni ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT ellismatthew ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT bradburyian ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT campbellchristine ametaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT robertsonjohnfr metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT jiangzefei metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT dileoangelo metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT ohnoshinji metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT pritchardkathleeni metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT ellismatthew metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT bradburyian metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer
AT campbellchristine metaanalysisofclinicalbenefitratesforfulvestrant500mgvsalternativeendocrinetherapiesforhormonereceptorpositiveadvancedbreastcancer