SynthesisOncology reviews2026
Comparative efficacy of subsequent-line therapies for advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oncology reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct head-to-head randomized comparisons among emerging therapies are limited, making it difficult to determine the optimal subsequent-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). This study aimed to systematically compare the relative efficacy of second- and later-line regimens using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to 30 September 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of second-/later-line advanced TNBC. A Bayesian NMA estimated effects on objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). SUCRA was used for ranking, and model convergence was assessed by Gelman-Rubin diagnostics. Single-arm studies were included only in sensitivity analyses using a down-weighted binomial model for ORR. Additional sensitivity analyses included ChemoC node splitting and evidence certainty assessment (CINeMA). Results: Thirty-one RCTs and 34 single-arm studies (11,048 patients; 22 regimens) were included. Antibody-drug conjugate (ADC)-based therapies showed the most favorable efficacy overall. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), sacituzumab tirumotecan (ST), and trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) ranked highest for ORR and PFS, with consistent benefits for SG and ST versus chemotherapy. T-DXd showed benefit mainly in HER2-low, HR-negative patients. For OS, SG and ST demonstrated clear advantages, while T-DXd showed non-significant effects. Combination chemotherapy outperformed single-agent chemotherapy for ORR and PFS. PARP inhibitors and PD-1-based regimens showed inconsistent efficacy across outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that incorporating single-arm data and separating chemotherapy nodes did not materially change treatment rankings or overall conclusions. Conclusion: ADCs, particularly SG and ST, were generally associated with favorable efficacy across outcomes in the subsequent-line treatment of advanced TNBC. These results may support clinical decision-making, although heterogeneity in study populations and the absence of direct comparisons highlight the need for further head-to-head trials.
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.