Phase III study on efficacy of taxanes plus bevacizumab with or without capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer

Efficacy and safety of first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A network meta-analysis

Background

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is an aggressive histological subtype with poor prognosis. Several first-line treatments are currently available for mTNBC. This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare these first-line regimens and to determine the regimen with the best efficacy.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Bases, and minutes of major conferences was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed via network meta-analysis using the R software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). The efficacy of the treatment regimens was compared using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 29 randomized controlled trials involving 4607 patients were analyzed. The ranking was based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Network meta-analysis results showed that cisplatin combined with nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel was superior to docetaxel plus capecitabine in terms of PFS and ORR. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation-positive tumors, atezolizumab/pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel and talazoparib was superior to docetaxel plus capecitabine. No significant difference was observed among the treatments in OS. Neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue were common serious adverse events.

Conclusion

Cisplatin combined with nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel is the preferred first-line treatment for mTNBC. For PD-L1 and BRCA mutation-positive tumors, atezolizumab/pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel and talazoparib is an effective treatment option. Neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue are frequently occurring serious adverse events.

Efficacy Evaluation of Bevacizumab Combined with Capecitabine in the Treatment of HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with capecitabine in treating HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer through meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched literature from databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, Ovid, CNKI, and Wanfang databases, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bevacizumab combined with capecitabine (experimental group) and other treatments (control group) for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Retrieved articles were published from the establishment of the database to August 9, 2022. The main outcome indicators were disease progression rate (RDP), disease progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival rate (OSR), the occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs), and objective remission rate (ORR). The risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane systematic evaluation tool. Then, the meta-analysis was carried out using Stata16.0 software, and subgroup analysis was carried out based on various intervention methods in the control group.

Results

8 RCTs were finally included in this study, including 2470 patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The results of meta-analysis showed that bevacizumab combined with capecitabine had no significant advantage over the control group in terms of RDP, but the results of subgroup analysis were consistent and significant (subgroup 1 (bevacizumab or chemotherapy): DR = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.09), P = 0.01; subgroup 2 (bevacizumab plus paclitaxel therapy): DR = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.09), P = 0.03). Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in terms of PFS of the experimental group (MD = 9.24, 95% CI (7.88, 32.67), P = 0.05). However, the subgroup analysis showed that the combination of bevacizumab and capecitabine demonstrated a more significant significance than bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone (subgroup 1: MD = 10.11, 95% CI (7.88, 12.34), P = 0.00). Compared with the control group, the experimental group had significant differences in OSR (DR = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.15), P = 0.00) and ORR (DR = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.15), P = 0.00). In terms of safety, the incidence of serious adverse events in the experimental group did not show a statistically significant difference (MD = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.21, 0.19), P = 0.82). When subgroup analyses were performed, the bevacizumab plus capecitabine regimen was associated with an increased incidence of serious adverse events compared with the drug alone (subgroup 1: MD = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.16, 0.20), P = 0.00) but a reduction in serious adverse events compared with the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel regimen (subgroup 2: DR = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.21, 0.19), P = 0.00).

Conclusion

The combination therapy of bevacizumab and capecitabine can significantly improve the RDP and OSR of patients compared with the control group. The PFS and ORR of the experimental group are significantly higher than those of bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone. Still, no statistical difference was observed for these outcome indicators between two combined treatments of bevacizumab with capecitabine or paclitaxel. Although this combined treatment scheme may increase the incidence of serious adverse events compared with that of bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone, the incidence of adverse events was decreased compared with bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel. Therefore, the chemotherapy regimen for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in clinical practice can be selected according to the actual situation of the patients.

Inhibition of stromal biglycan promotes normalization of the tumor microenvironment and enhances chemotherapeutic efficacy

BACKGROUND

Biglycan is a proteoglycan found in the extracellular matrix. We have previously shown that biglycan is secreted from tumor endothelial cells and induces tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. However, the function of stroma biglycan in breast cancer is still unclear.

METHODS

Biglycan gene analysis and its prognostic values in human breast cancers were based on TCGA data. E0771 breast cancer cells were injected into WT and Bgn KO mice, respectively.

RESULTS

Breast cancer patients with high biglycan expression had worse distant metastasis-free survival. Furthermore, biglycan expression was higher in the tumor stromal compartment compared to the epithelial compartment. Knockout of biglycan in the stroma (Bgn KO) in E0771 tumor-bearing mice inhibited metastasis to the lung. Bgn KO also impaired tumor angiogenesis and normalized tumor vasculature by repressing tumor necrosis factor-ɑ/angiopoietin 2 signaling. Moreover, fibrosis was suppressed and CD8+ T cell infiltration was increased in tumor-bearing Bgn KO mice. Furthermore, chemotherapy drug delivery and efficacy were improved in vivo in Bgn KO mice.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that targeting stromal biglycan may yield a potent and superior anticancer effect in breast cancer.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140673.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bevacizumab in First-Line Metastatic Breast Cancer: Lessons for Research and Regulatory Enterprises

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval and later withdrawal of bevacizumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a seminal case for ongoing debates about the validity of using progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate measure for overall survival (OS) in cancer drug approvals. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the evidence around bevacizumab's regulatory approval and withdrawal in mBC.

METHODS

We searched for all published phase II or III clinical trials testing bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with mBC. Data were extracted on trial demographics, interventions, and outcomes. Descriptive analysis was stratified by whether the trial was initiated before, during, or after the accelerated approval. We used a cumulative random-effects meta-analysis to assess the evolution of evidence of the effect of bevacizumab on PFS and OS. We estimated the association between the trial-level PFS and OS effect using a nonlinear mixed-regression model.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. Trial activity dramatically dropped after the accelerated approval was withdrawn. Eight clinical trials reported hazard ratios (hazard ratios) and were meta-analyzed. The cumulative hazard ratio for PFS was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65 to 0.79), and the cumulative hazard ratio for OS was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.01). The regression model showed a statistically nonsignificant association between PFS benefit and OS benefit (β = 0.43, SE = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

The US Food and Drug Administration's decision-making in this case was consistent with the evolving state of evidence. However, the fact that seven clinical trials are insufficient to conclude validity (or lack thereof) for a trial-level surrogate suggests that it would be more efficient to conduct trials using the more clinically meaningful endpoints.

Efficacy of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is not known what combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy agents is the best therapeutic regimen. Comparative study results among the efficacies of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy remain controversial in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central Resister of Controlled Trials through were July 2019 for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Data on included study characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 16 RCT studies involving 5689 patients were included. The results showed that bevacizumab (Bev) - taxanes (Tax) - capecitabine (Cap) has highest-ranking and is probably more effective for prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) than Tax, Cap, Bev-Tax and Bev-Cap, which was no convincing differences among Bev-Cap-vinorelbine, Bev-Tax-everolimus, Bev-Tax-trebananib, Bev-exemestane, Bev-Cap-cyclophosphamide in Bev-containing regimens. For overall response rate (ORR), Bev-Tax-Cap is superior to Tax, Cap and Bev-Cap, while Bev-Tax-trebananib is superior to Cap. The cumulative probability ranking showed that Bev-Tax-Cap or Bev-Tax-trebananib may have best pathological response rate in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide moderate quality evidence that bevacizumab-taxanes-capecitabine maybe the most effective bevacizumab plus chemotherapy on PFS and ORR in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, however it should be also considered that bevacizumab may add toxicity to chemotherapy and whether improve overall survival (OS) or not.

Fatal events during clinical trials: an evaluation of deaths during breast cancer studies

BACKGROUND

Information on deaths occurring during oncological clinical trials has never been systematically assessed. Here, we examine the incidence of death and the profile of patients who died during randomized clinical breast cancer (BC) trials.

METHODS

Information on fatal events during German Breast Group (GBG) led BC trials was prospectively captured. Data were derived from the trial databases and death narratives. All deaths were evaluated for possible causes, underlying conditions, treatment relatedness, time point and rate of autopsies.

RESULTS

From 12/1996 to 01/2017, 23,387 patients were treated within 32 trials. Of those 88 (0.4%) died on therapy within 17 trials. Median age was 64 [range 35-84] years, 63.2% of patients had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m²; 65.9% 1-3 and 22.7% ≥ 4 comorbidities; 61.4% 1-2 cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs); 26.4% took > 3 drugs; 81.7% had ECOG 0; 50.0% stage III, 76.7% luminal BC. The main causes of death were infection (38.6%; of those, 82.3% sepsis, 17.6% pneumonia), heart failure (14.8%), and pulmonary embolism (13.6%). Fatal events mainly occurred within the first 4 therapy cycles (55.7%), in the investigational arm (66.7%) and under anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy (51.1%). A relationship with the treatment was declared in 27.3% of the cases. An autopsy was performed in 13.6% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Death during study treatment was mainly related to infections, and patients with advanced disease, high BMI, underlying comorbidities, CRFs and concomitant medications. If considered for study participation these patients need careful monitoring due to their higher risk for death on study.

Is progression-free survival a more relevant endpoint than overall survival in first-line HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer?

BACKGROUND

Hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), metastatic breast cancer (MBC) accounts for 73% of all MBCs. Endocrine therapy (ET) is the basis of first-line (1L) therapy for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC. Novel therapies have demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) compared to ET. The clinical relevance of PFS is being debated, as there is no proven direct correlation with overall survival (OS) benefit to date. We reviewed studies of HR+/HER2- MBC to assess PFS and other factors that influence OS and treatment response, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

The Embase®, Medline®, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies in adult women with HR+/HER2- MBC, published between January 2006 and January 2017, and written in English. Phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational, and retrospective studies were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine RCTs were identified: 58 (73%) in the 1L+ setting and 21 (27%) in second-line or greater settings. PFS hazard ratios (HRs) were reported in 61 (77%) studies; 31 (39%) reported significant PFS improvements. OS was reported in 44 (41%) studies; 12 (15%) reported significant OS improvements. Significant improvements in both PFS and OS were reported in only 6 (8%) studies (1 Phase II; 5 Phase III). Patients with HER2- MBC received, on average, ≥5 lines of therapy, with no consistent treatment pathway. Baseline characteristics, prior therapies, and the type and number of post-progression therapies significantly impacted OS. PFS, response rates, and HRQoL decreased with each line of therapy (EuroQol 5 Dimensions: 0.78 1L vs. 0.70 post-progression).

CONCLUSION

Few RCTs in HR+/HER2- MBC have demonstrated significant improvements in OS. Factors other than choice of 1L therapy impact OS, including post-progression therapies, which cannot be controlled in RCTs. This study emphasizes the importance of PFS improvement in 1L treatment of HR+/HER2- MBC.

Risk-adapted monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring: Results of the ADAMON cluster-randomised study

Background

According to Good Clinical Practice, clinical trials must protect rights and safety of patients and make sure that the trial results are valid and interpretable. Monitoring on-site has an important role in achieving these objectives; it controls trial conduct at trial sites and informs the sponsor on systematic problems. In the past, extensive on-site monitoring with a particular focus on formal source data verification often lost sight of systematic problems in study procedures that endanger Good Clinical Practice objectives. ADAMON is a prospective, stratified, cluster-randomised, controlled study comparing extensive on-site monitoring with risk-adapted monitoring according to a previously published approach.

Methods

In all, 213 sites from 11 academic trials were cluster-randomised between extensive on-site monitoring (104) and risk-adapted monitoring (109). Independent post-trial audits using structured manuals were performed to determine the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings at the patient level. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of audited patients with at least one major audit finding. Analysis relies on logistic regression incorporating trial and monitoring arm as fixed effects and site as random effect. The hypothesis was that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring with a non-inferiority margin of 0.60 (logit scale).

Results

Average number of monitoring visits and time spent on-site was 2.1 and 2.7 times higher in extensive on-site monitoring than in risk-adapted monitoring, respectively. A total of 156 (extensive on-site monitoring: 76; risk-adapted monitoring: 80) sites were audited. In 996 of 1618 audited patients, a total of 2456 major audit findings were documented. Depending on the trial, findings were identified in 18%–99% of the audited patients, with no marked monitoring effect in any of the trials. The estimated monitoring effect is −0.04 on the logit scale with two-sided 95% confidence interval (−0.40; 0.33), demonstrating that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. At most, extensive on-site monitoring could reduce the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings by 8.2% compared with risk-adapted monitoring.

Conclusion

Compared with risk-adapted monitoring, the potential benefit of extensive on-site monitoring is small relative to overall finding rates, although risk-adapted monitoring requires less than 50% of extensive on-site monitoring resources. Clusters of findings within trials suggest that complicated, overly specific or not properly justified protocol requirements contributed to the overall frequency of findings. Risk-adapted monitoring in only a sample of patients appears sufficient to identify systematic problems in the conduct of clinical trials. Risk-adapted monitoring has a part to play in quality control. However, no monitoring strategy can remedy defects in quality of design. Monitoring should be embedded in a comprehensive quality management approach covering the entire trial lifecycle.

Progression-Free Survival and Time to Progression as Real Surrogate End Points for Overall Survival in Advanced Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 37 Trials

BACKGROUND

Progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) have been reported to correlate with overall survival (OS) in several cancer types. To our knowledge, however, the correlation between them is unclear.

METHODS

A literature-based meta-analysis was performed to assess whether PFS and TTP can be considered reliable surrogate end points for OS in a phase 3 clinical trial of advanced breast cancer (ABC). The median hazard ratios of PFS/TTP and OS were analyzed by determining their nonparametric Spearman rank correlation coefficients (Rs).

RESULTS

A total of 37 trials with 38 treatment arms and 14,966 patients were selected for analysis. The Rs between the median PFS/TTP and OS was 0.405 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.191-0.582; P = .003), and the correlation coefficient between the hazard ratios of PFS/TTP and OS was 0.555 (95% CI, 0.277-0.748; P = .003). PFS/TTP was closely correlated with OS in the trials of targeted therapy-based treatment (Rs = 0.872; 95% CI, 0.619-0.962; P = .0001) and of PFS/TTP or OS benefit (Rs = 0.753 and Rs = 0.821, respectively) for ABC.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PFS and TTP can be considered valid surrogate end points for OS in the trials of targeted therapy-based treatments and clinical benefits for ABC. Further research is necessary to clarify the surrogacy of PFS/TTP for OS in other trials of targeted therapy-based treatments for ABC.

Optimizing the treatment of bevacizumab as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of published randomized trials

Background

Manifold data have demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS), while few trials have revealed its significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Furthermore, it still remains suspended how to maximize the benefits of bevacizumab as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the benefits of bevacizumab with chemotherapy and to identify the ideal chemotherapy partner of bevacizumab in the first-line setting for HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients.

Methods

Computerized and manual searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone or bevacizumab with different chemotherapy regimens as first-line therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer patients. Risk ratios or odds ratios with their 95% CIs were used to estimate the association between multiple combinations of bevacizumab with chemotherapy and various clinical outcomes.

Results

With 7 trials identified, this analysis included 3,984 eligible patients. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS (P=0.019) and objective response rate (ORR; P<0.001) rather than in OS (P=0.783) when compared with chemotherapy alone. The greater benefits in PFS and ORR were achieved from bevacizumab plus taxane-based regimens compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine-based regimens, while bevacizumab plus capecitabine had comparable OS with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Additionally, bevacizumab-based triplet therapy failed to improve the clinical outcomes when compared with doublet therapy.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis reveals that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy yielded PFS and ORR benefits in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Additional studies are still prompted to further optimize the first-line treatment of bevacizumab.

Micro-RNAs as Potential Predictors of Response to Breast Cancer Systemic Therapy: Future Clinical Implications

Despite advances in diagnosis and new treatments such as targeted therapies, breast cancer (BC) is still the most prevalent tumor in women worldwide and the leading cause of death. The principal obstacle for successful BC treatment is the acquired or de novo resistance of the tumors to the systemic therapy (chemotherapy, endocrine, and targeted therapies) that patients receive. In the era of personalized treatment, several studies have focused on the search for biomarkers capable of predicting the response to this therapy; microRNAs (miRNAs) stand out among these markers due to their broad spectrum or potential clinical applications. miRNAs are conserved small non-coding RNAs that act as negative regulators of gene expression playing an important role in several cellular processes, such as cell proliferation, autophagy, genomic stability, and apoptosis. We reviewed recent data that describe the role of miRNAs as potential predictors of response to systemic treatments in BC. Furthermore, upon analyzing the collected published information, we noticed that the overexpression of miR-155, miR-222, miR-125b, and miR-21 predicts the resistance to the most common systemic treatments; nonetheless, the function of these particular miRNAs must be carefully studied and further analyses are still necessary to increase knowledge about their role and future potential clinical uses in BC.

Clinical results of randomized trials and 'real-world' data exploring the impact of Bevacizumab for breast cancer: opportunities for clinical practice and perspectives for research

INTRODUCTION

Angiogenesis plays a fundamental role in breast cancer (BC) growth, progression and metastatic spread. After the promising introduction of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced BC, the initial enthusiasm decreased when the FDA withdrew its approval in 2011. Nevertheless, several clinical studies exploring the role of bevacizumab have been subsequently published. Areas covered: The aim of this study is to review the available clinical trials exploring the potential effectiveness of bevacizumab in BC, regardless of the disease setting. Expert opinion: Even if the evidence suggests that bevacizumab must be ruled out from the HER2-positive and adjuvant setting, bevacizumab's benefit remains uncertain in the neoadjuvant setting and in the advanced treatment of HER2-negative patients. In the first setting, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy increased the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in most clinical trials. However, the current absence of evidence that pCR is a trial-level surrogate for survival requires waiting for long-term results. In the advanced setting, all trials showed a benefit in progression-free survival, but not in overall survival, highlighting an increase of adverse events. The lack of predictors of response represents the main unmet need in which future clinical research will undoubtedly invest.

A Delphi consensus and open debate on the role of first-line bevacizumab for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

To gain consensus on the role of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, a panel of expert oncologists experienced in treating patients with metastatic breast cancer in Italy participated in a Delphi consensus study. The panel reached a full consensus on the efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and the clinical meaningfulness of the progression-free survival benefit compared with paclitaxel alone, despite the lack of an overall survival effect in clinical trials. The participants agreed that real-world data support the effectiveness and well-defined safety profile of the regimen. Views on the use of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in specific patient populations were not unanimous and clinical judgment remains important. Nevertheless, a high level of agreement was reached.

Efficacy and safety of adding an agent to bevacizumab/taxane regimens for the first-line treatment of Her2-negative patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: results from seven randomized controlled trials

Background

The combined therapy of bevacizumab (BEV) with taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel) has shown an improvement on progression-free survival (PFS) and objective remission in Her2-negative patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/MBC). However, there was no benefit in overall survival (OS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding an agent to the BEV/taxane regimens for the treatment of Her2-negative patients with LR/MBC in a first-line setting.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library databases for eligible trials. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 freeware package. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS. The odds ratio (OR) was used to calculate objective response rate (ORR) and grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events. The heterogeneity of study outcomes was calculated by the χ² test or I² statistics.

Results

A total of 1,124 patients from seven randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Our meta-analysis showed that the ORR was significantly improved in the BEV/taxane-based triplet group when compared with the BEV/taxane-based doublet group (OR =1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03–1.67, P=0.03). A subset analysis showed that a similar result was achieved in the triplet group in which a cytotoxic agent was added (OR =1.46, 95% CI: 1.09–1.95, P=0.01). However, the PFS and OS had no statistically significant differences between the two groups (HR =0.87, 95% CI: 0.68–1.13, P=0.31; HR =0.98, 95% CI: 0.82–1.16, P=0.78, respectively). Regarding safety, thromboembolic events, fatigue, and diarrhea (all $grade 3) were more frequently observed in the BEV/taxane-based triplet group (OR =3.8, 95% CI: 1.86–7.79, P=0.0003; OR =1.55, 95% CI: 1.05–2.27, P=0.03; OR =2.1, 95% CI: 1.29–3.41, P=0.003, respectively). Other toxic effects had no statistically significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our results showed that adding an agent to BEV/taxane treatment regimens did not significantly improve PFS and prolong OS, except for conferring a significant advantage toward improved ORR in the first-line therapy for Her2-negative patients with LR/MBC. However, its side effects are predictable and manageable.