Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Several databases were searched, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: The final analysis included twelve trials comprising 2,054 patients with TNBC, which compared conventional CT alone against CT combined with targeted therapy (bevacizumab [Bev], sorafenib [Sor], cetuximab, lapatinib, and iniparib). PFS was superior in previously untreated patients with TNBC who received Bev plus CT compared to CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75; P<0.00001). Also, PFS was higher in one study that tested Bev plus CT combination in previously treated patients (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74; P=0.0006). Sor plus CT was also tested as first-line and second-line treatments. The pooled data of PFS favored the combination CT plus Sor (fixed effect, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.98; P=0.04). Comparisons of iniparib plus CT also had a better PFS than CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90; P=0.002). CONCLUSION: Targeted therapy, when associated with conventional CT, demonstrated gains in the PFS of patients with TNBC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clark et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: