| Title |
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
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s103954 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaoqun Liu, Xiangdong Liu, Tiankui Qiao, Wei Chen, Sujuan Yuan |
| Abstract |
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. 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 χ (2) test or I (2) statistics. 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. 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 22% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,352
of 353,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#77
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.