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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |