2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Many breast cancer clinical trials with PARPi have been completed or are currently carried out, either by monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of PARPi in breast cancer patients as compared to chemotherapy.

          Methods

          A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference meetings and clinical trial registry was performed. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR). The secondary outcome was safety profile. The comparative effects were measured using hazard ratio (HR) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on types of intervention and baseline characteristics of patients.

          Results

          Six RCTs (n = 1953) were included. Two RCTs were recognized as high risk. PARPi was associated with an improved PFS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56–0.74), OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73–1.01), and a higher ORR (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05–1.82). PARPi, however, significantly increased risk of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06–2.52). Monotherapy was observed with lower risk of disease progression and higher ORR rate than combination therapy, 0.56 to 0.65 and 2.21 to 1.05, respectively. For patients without prior platinum treatment, PARPi significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52–0.79).

          Conclusions

          PARPi was observed with a significantly improved efficacy in aspects of PFS and ORR, but also higher risk of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia as compared to chemotherapy. PARPi was a better choice for patients who had not received previous platinum treatment.

          Highlights

          • PARPi showed improved efficacy in PFS and ORR.

          • PARPi presented higher risk of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia.

          • PARPi is better for patients who had not received prior platinum treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Breast
                Breast
                The Breast : Official Journal of the European Society of Mastology
                Elsevier
                0960-9776
                1532-3080
                27 May 2021
                October 2021
                27 May 2021
                : 59
                : 44-50
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Breast, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, China
                [b ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanxi Cancer Hospital, Taiyuan, China
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. No. 110, South Yan an road, Luzhou district, Changzhi, 046000, Shanxi Province, China. cmsrxk@ 123456163.com
                [∗∗ ]Corresponding author. 13109925499@ 123456sina.cn
                [1]

                These authors are co-first authors and contributed equally to this study.

                Article
                S0960-9776(21)00381-7
                10.1016/j.breast.2021.05.009
                8215282
                34130011
                030b6c8b-279a-426d-b5ae-e8b9a40aab29
                © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 March 2021
                : 19 May 2021
                : 21 May 2021
                Categories
                Original Article

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                poly-adp-ribose polymerase,breast neoplasms,meta-analysis,pfs, progression-free survival,os, overall survival,orr, overall response rate,hr, hazard ratio,rr, relative risk,tnbc, triple-negative breast cancer,parp, poly-adp-ribose polymerase,pcr, pathological complete response,ae, adverse event,rct, randomized controlled trial,ci, confidence interval

                Comments

                Comment on this article