Comparative effectiveness and safety of eribulin in advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引：12

作者：

Tanni, Kaniz Afroz ^{[1
]}

Truong, Cong Bang ^{[1
]}

Johnson, Brandon S. ^{[2
]}

Qian, Jingjing ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Auburn Univ Harrison, Dept Hlth Outcomes Res & Policy, Sch Pharm, Auburn, AL 36849 USA

[2] East Alabama Med Ctr, Spencer Canc Ctr, Opelika, AL 36801 USA

来源：

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY | 2021年 / 163卷

关键词：

Metastatic breast cancer; Comparative effectiveness; Adverse events; Chemotherapy; Eribulin; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; PHASE-II; POOLED ANALYSIS; CHEMOTHERAPY; MESYLATE; WOMEN; CAPECITABINE; PUBLICATION; MULTICENTER; GEMCITABINE; VINORELBINE;

D O I：

10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103375

中图分类号：

R73 [肿瘤学];

学科分类号：

100214 ;

摘要：

Eribulin is one of the few recommended chemotherapies for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We systematically searched MEDLINE Ovid, Cochrane Library, IPA, CINAHL, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations for studies evaluating eribulin versus non-eribulin regimens in LABC/MBC till January 15, 2021. Primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE), respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) and relative risks (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed or random-effects meta-analyses. Of 1183 publications identified, 13 studies were included in this review. Eribulin based therapy showed significantly increased OS [HR (95 % CI) = 0.77 (0.67-0.88)] compared to non-eribulin in both main and sensitivity analyses, as well as subgroup analyses according to receptor expression and line of therapy. Incidence of all-grade neutropenia was the only significant AE in eribulin than non-eribulin groups. Eribulin has a manageable toxicity profile and provides significant survival benefit in LABC/ MBC patients.

引用

页数：11

共 73 条

[21]

ESMO, 2020, Clinical Practice Guidelines Metastatic NSCLC

[22]

Evans Scott R, 2010, J Exp Stroke Transl Med, V3, P8

[23] Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological Overview [J].

Golder, Su ;

Loke, Yoon K. ;

Bland, Martin .

PLOS MEDICINE, 2011, 8 (05)

[24]

Gonzalez-Angulo AM, 2007, ADV EXP MED BIOL, V608, P1

[25] Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies Guidelines for Assessing Respective Strengths and Limitations [J].

Hannan, Edward L. .

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2008, 1 (03) :211-217

[26] Appraising the evidence: what is selection bias? [J].

Henderson, Max ;

Page, Lisa .

EVIDENCE-BASED MENTAL HEALTH, 2007, 10 (03) :67-68

[27] Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses [J].

Higgins, JPT ;

Thompson, SG ;

Deeks, JJ ;

Altman, DG .

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 327 (7414) :557-560

[28] US Incidence of Breast Cancer Subtypes Defined by Joint Hormone Receptor and HER2 Status [J].

Howlader, Nadia ;

Altekruse, Sean F. ;

Li, Christopher I. ;

Chen, Vivien W. ;

Clarke, Christina A. ;

Ries, Lynn A. G. ;

Cronin, Kathleen A. .

JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2014, 106 (05)

[29] Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis [J].

IntHout, Joanna ;

Ioannidis, John P. A. ;

Rovers, Maroeska M. ;

Goeman, Jelle J. .

BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (07)

[30] Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies [J].

Ioannidis, JPA ;

Haidich, AB ;

Pappa, M ;

Pantazis, N ;

Kokori, SI ;

Tektonidou, MG ;

Contopoulos-Ioannidis, DG ;

Lau, J .

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 286 (07) :821-830

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 →