A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The impact of previous therapy on overall-survival in registration clinical trials for 1st line metastatic breast cancer a systemic review. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates how prior treatments affect the effectiveness of new drugs for first-line metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
  • It analyzes data from FDA-approved MBC trials between 2000 and 2023, focusing on overall survival rates for treatment-naïve versus previously treated patients.
  • Results show no significant overall survival difference between the two groups, but treatment-naïve patients with triple-negative breast cancer experienced a notable survival benefit, suggesting a potential bias in evaluating new treatments.

Article Abstract

Aim: To explore the impact of previous treatment on the efficacy of investigational new drugs in registration trials for 1st line metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Methods: Thirteen US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indications for 1st line MBC between 1/2000-12/2023 were identified and their supporting publications were searched in the ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. Where available, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for overall-survival (OS) were pooled into meta-analysis and the difference in the magnitude of OS benefit between treatment naïve and previously treated patients was analyzed.

Results: There was no difference in the magnitude of OS benefit between treatment-naïve and previously treated patients (HR=0.72 versus 0.80,p for difference=0.25). In indications for triple-negative BC, treatment-naïve patients had higher magnitude of OS benefit compared to previously treated patients (HR=0.53 versus 0.81,p=0.03). In indications for luminal disease, the magnitude of benefit was comparable between the subgroups.

Conclusions: In trials supporting 1st line therapy for TNBC the magnitude of benefit is significantly higher in treatment naïve compared to previously treated patients. Our findings may represent a previously unrecognized bias, potentially over-estimating the benefit of triple-negative BC new drugs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104455DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnitude benefit
20
treated patients
16
impact previous
8
trials 1st
8
1st metastatic
8
metastatic breast
8
breast cancer
8
difference magnitude
8
treatment naïve
8
compared treated
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!