Safety and efficacy outcomes with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis
| Autor: | Volker Moebus, Michael Untch, Ulrike Nitz, Paolo Pronzato, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Chet Bohac, Dianne Tomita, Matti Aapro, Brian Leyland-Jones |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2015 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Breast Neoplasms Disease Breast cancer Internal medicine Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols medicine Humans Intensive care medicine Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals business.industry Surrogate endpoint Anemia Hematology Odds ratio Prognosis medicine.disease Chemotherapy regimen Confidence interval Oncology Erythropoietin Meta-analysis Disease Progression Hematinics Female Safety business medicine.drug |
| Zdroj: | Annals of Oncology. 26:688-695 |
| ISSN: | 0923-7534 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/annonc/mdu579 |
| Popis: | A meta-analysis of trials of ESA use in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy was conducted. Nine studies were analyzed (ESAn = 2346; controln = 2367). The overall stratified random-effects odds ratio (95% CI) was 1.17 (0.99–1.39) for death and 1.01 (0.87–1.16) for disease progression-related end points. Odds ratios remain consistent with prior data after including recent results. Background New data on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) regarding overall survival and disease progression-related outcomes in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy are presented in a meta-analysis of controlled trials of ESA use (epoetin a, epoetin b, darbepoetin a, biosimilars). Patients and methods A literature search identified reports from January 1997 through March 2014. We used company databases for Amgen, Inc., or Janssen studies and published data for other studies. Random-effects odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare results for patients randomized to ESA with those randomized to control. Results Deaths were reported for 571 of 2346 patients (24%) in the ESA groups and 523 of 2367 patients (22%) in the control groups [OR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.40]. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the effects of individual studies and exclusion of one study (BEST) resulted in an OR for death of 1.12 (95% CI 0.94–1.34). In seven studies reporting progression-related end points (N = 4197; ESAn = 2088; controln = 2109), the OR was 1.01 (95% CI 0.87–1.16) for ESA compared with control. Conclusions After incorporating recent results of ESA use in patients with breast cancer, risks of survival and progression-free survival remain consistent with previously published data. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|