SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
Efficacy and safety of first-line therapy in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality-of-life assessment in the randomized JBCRG-M06/EMERALD study of eribulin plus dual HER2 blockade in HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Trial
- Pyrotinib versus pertuzumab with trastuzumab and taxane in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a Chinese multicenter real-world study.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Pan-caner analysis identifies PSMA7 as a targets for amplification at 20q13.33 in tumorigenesis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe numerous first-line treatment regimens for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) necessitate a comprehensive evaluation to inform clinical decision-making. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventions.
methodsWe systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and online abstracts from inception to June 1, 2023. NMA was performed to calculate and analyze progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events of grade 3 or higher (≥ 3 AEs).
resultsOut of the 10,313 manuscripts retrieved, we included 28 RCTs involving 11,680 patients. Regarding PFS and ORR, the combination of trastuzumab with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was more favorable than dual-targeted therapy. If only using trastuzumab, combination chemotherapy is superior to monochemotherapy in terms of PFS. It is important to note that the addition of anthracycline did not result in improved PFS. For patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-positive diseases, dual-targeted combined with endocrine therapy showed better benefit in terms of PFS compared to dual-targeted alone, but it did not reach statistical significance. The comprehensive analysis of PFS and ≥ 3 AEs indicates that monochemotherapy combined with dual-targeted therapy still has the optimal balance between efficacy and safety.
conclusionMonochemotherapy (Docetaxel) plus dual-target (Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab) therapy remains the optimal choice among all first-line treatment options for ABC. The combination of trastuzumab with TKIs (Pyrotinib) demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS and ORR, but further data are warranted to confirm the survival benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.