ArticlePloS one2026
Efficacy and safety of T-DXd versus Other HER2-targeted therapies in second-line and later settings for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundHER2-positive advanced breast cancer remains challenging after trastuzumab-based therapy because available regimens differ in survival, response, and toxicity. We compared therapies used in second-line and later settings.
methodsThis PRISMA-NMA-compliant review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251244047). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched through July 24, 2026. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials after trastuzumab-based therapy were eligible. Bayesian network meta-analysis summarized PFS and OS as hazard ratios and confirmed ORR and safety outcomes as odds ratios. Random-effects models were used where heterogeneity was estimable; fixed-effect Bayesian models were used for the sparse SAE and ILD/pneumonitis networks. DoR was analyzed exploratorily using a fixed-effect Bayesian normal model after prespecified conversion of arm-level summary statistics; TTP was not quantitatively synthesized when the required summary measures were unavailable or clinically non-equivalent.
resultsSixteen reports representing seven independent randomized trial families and 3,339 unique randomized participants were included. Relative to T-DXd, T-DM1 had less favorable PFS (HR 3.30, 95% CrI 2.06-5.28) and OS (HR 1.52, 1.19-2.01). However, T-DXd was not represented in the second-line-only OS network or the Asia-dominant PFS/OS networks; therefore, its survival ranking reflects evidence primarily from mixed-line, non-Asia-dominant trials. T-DXd produced higher confirmed ORR than Lap-Cap (OR 7.43, 3.80-13.16), PTN-Cap (OR 3.35, 1.24-8.19), and T-DM1 (OR 6.31, 3.98-10.32). DoR showed no clear between-treatment difference in the EMILIA/NALA network, and TTP could not be quantitatively synthesized. Any-grade AE estimates did not indicate a safety advantage for T-DXd. SAE comparisons were also inconclusive: T-DM1 vs Lap-Cap OR 0.90 (0.67-1.21) and T-DXd vs T-DM1 OR 1.30 (0.87-1.93). T-DXd had higher ILD/pneumonitis odds than T-DM1 (OR 5.55, 2.79-12.16); LVD differences were unclear.
conclusionWithin the connected overall networks, T-DXd showed a favorable survival profile and the highest confirmed ORR, although its survival ranking was not estimable in the second-line-only OS or Asia-dominant survival networks. Its increased ILD/pneumonitis risk relative to T-DM1 is clinically important. Indirect survival comparisons and sparse safety networks require cautious interpretation.
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.