dc.contributor.author | Robertson, JFR | |
dc.contributor.author | Di Leo, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Johnston, S | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia, S | |
dc.contributor.author | Bliss, JM | |
dc.contributor.author | Paridaens, RJ | |
dc.contributor.author | Lichfield, J | |
dc.contributor.author | Bradbury, I | |
dc.contributor.author | Campbell, C | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-02-19T15:58:31Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-02-19T15:58:31Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-02-12 | |
dc.identifier | 11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | npj Breast Cancer, 2021, 7 (1) | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/4350 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2374-4677 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1038/s41523-021-00222-y | |
dc.description.abstract | Endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended as first-line therapy for the majority of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC); however, the efficacy of ET in patients with visceral metastases (VM) versus patients whose disease is limited to non-visceral metastases (non-VM) is debated. Meta-analyses including available data from randomised controlled trials of first- and second-line endocrine monotherapies for patients with HR+ ABC were performed to address this question. In one and two-stage meta-analyses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and duration of clinical benefit (DoCB) outcomes were analysed. In the first-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 1988) tamoxifen and fulvestrant significantly improved PFS, OS and CBR for patients with non-VM versus those whose disease included VM. The most substantial hazard ratios were observed for fulvestrant 500 mg; 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.70) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.72) for PFS and OS, respectively. In the second-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 2324), all ET combined was more effective (in terms of PFS, OS and DoCB) for non-VM versus VM. In both meta-analyses, patients with non-liver VM had better clinical outcomes than patients with liver VM for all types of ET. Patients whose disease included non-VM sites had better clinical outcomes with endocrine monotherapy compared with patients whose disease included VM. These findings may facilitate better informed treatment decision-making. | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | NATURE PORTFOLIO | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
dc.title | Meta-analyses of visceral versus non-visceral metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treated by endocrine monotherapies. | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2021-01-08 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1038/s41523-021-00222-y | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | npj Breast Cancer | |
pubs.issue | 1 | |
pubs.notes | Not known | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit | |
pubs.publication-status | Published online | |
pubs.volume | 7 | |
pubs.embargo.terms | Not known | |
icr.researchteam | Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit | |
icr.researchteam | Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Bliss, Judith | |