Platinum-containing regimens for triple-negative metastatic breast cancer

Sam J Egger, Matthew Ming Ki Chan, Qingwei Luo, Nicholas Wilcken, Sam J Egger, Matthew Ming Ki Chan, Qingwei Luo, Nicholas Wilcken

Abstract

Background: In a previous Cochrane Review, we found that for women with metastatic breast cancer unselected for triple-negative disease, there is little or no survival benefit and excess toxicity from platinum-based regimens. In subgroup analyses, however, we found preliminary low-quality evidence of a survival benefit from platinum-based regimens for women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This review updates the evidence from the mTNBC subgroup analyses in the previous Cochrane Review.

Objectives: To assess the effects of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in the management of women with mTNBC.

Search methods: We obtained relevant studies published prior to 2015 and their extracted results from the mTNBC subgroup analysis in the previous Cochrane Review. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov between 2015 and 27 September 2019. We identified further potentially relevant studies from previous trial reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials comparing platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in women with mTNBC. Individual trials could compare one or more platinum-based regimens to one or more non-platinum regimens; hence there could be more 'treatment-comparisons' (i.e. platinum regimen versus non-platinum regimen comparison) than trials. Trial participants may have been purposely selected for mTNBC or inadvertently selected as a subgroup.

Data collection and analysis: At least two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility and quality, and extracted all relevant data from each study. We derived hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and used fixed-effect models for meta-analyses. We analysed objective tumour response rates (OTRRs) and toxicities as binary (dichotomous) outcomes with risk ratios (RRs) used as measures of effects. We extracted quality of life data, if available. We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence for time-to-event and tumour response outcomes.

Main results: This review includes 13 treatment-comparisons involving 1349 women from 10 studies. Twelve of the 13 treatment-comparisons were included in one or more meta-analyses. Of the 13 treatment-comparisons, six and eight had published or provided time-to-event data on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival/time to progression (PFS/TTP), respectively, that could be included in meta-analyses. Ten treatment-comparisons published or provided OTRR data that could be included in meta-analyses. Eight of the 13 treatment-comparisons were from studies that selected participants on the basis of mTNBC status, while the other five treatment-comparisons were from studies that reported mTNBC results as part of subgroup analyses. Analysis of six treatment-comparisons indicated that platinum-containing regimens may have provided a small survival benefit to mTNBC patients (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; 958 women; moderate-quality evidence) with no evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.41; I2 = 1%). Data from eight treatment-comparisons showed that platinum regimens may improve PFS/TTP (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.88; 1077 women; very low-quality evidence). There was marked evidence of heterogeneity (P < 0.0001; I2 = 80%). There was also low-quality evidence of better tumour response for platinum recipients (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.59; 1205 women) with some evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.01; I2 = 58%). The observed heterogeneity for the PFS/TTP and OTRR outcomes may reflect between-study differences and general difficulties in assessing tumour response, as well as the varying potencies of the comparators. Compared with women receiving non-platinum regimens: rates of grade 3 and 4 nausea/vomiting were higher for platinum recipients (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.93 to 11.81; 655 women; low-quality evidence) and rates of grade 3 and 4 anaemia were higher for platinum recipients (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.25 to 6.42; 843 women; low-quality evidence). In general, however, relatively few intervention-comparisons could be included in meta-analyses for adverse events. None of the studies reported quality of life.

Authors' conclusions: For women with mTNBC, there was moderate-quality evidence of a small survival benefit from platinum-based regimens compared to non-platinum regimens. This finding is consistent with findings of a PFS/TTP benefit and improved tumour response from platinum-based regimens. These potential benefits, however, should be weighed against previously identified excess toxicities from platinum-based regimens, particularly regimens containing cisplatin. Further randomised trials of platinum-based regimens among women with mTNBC are required.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00201760 NCT01149083 NCT00717951 NCT01898117 NCT02207335 NCT02207361.

Conflict of interest statement

SE: none known. MC: none known. QL: none known. NW: has intermittently served on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies and been paid honoraria for educational lectures sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. None of these activities concerned use of platinums for breast cancer and fees were donated to a patient care fund at Westmead Hospital.

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figures

1
1
Review 2020: study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Funnel plot for PFS/TTP (Progression‐free survival/time to progression). Assessing publication bias and/or small‐study effects. Plot includes all treatment‐comparisons with data for PFS/TTP that could be included in meta‐analysis. The plot suggests some level of asymmetry (Egger's test P value = 0.02).
4
4
Funnel plot for overall survival (OS). Assessing publication bias and/or small‐study effects. Plot includes all treatment‐comparisons with data for OS that could be included in meta‐analysis.. The plot does not show substantial asymmetry (Egger's test P value = 0.08)
5
5
Funnel plot for objective tumour response rate (OTRR). Assessing publication bias and/or small‐study effects. Plot includes all treatment‐comparisons with data for OTRR that could be included in meta‐analysis. The plot does not show asymmetry (Egger's test P value = 0.12).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens, outcome: 1.1 Overall survival.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens, outcome: 1.2 Progression‐free survival/time to progression.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens, outcome: 1.3 Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants).
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens, Outcome 1: Overall survival
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens, Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens, Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 1: by type of regimen comparison), Outcome 1: Overall survival
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 1: by type of regimen comparison), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 1: by type of regimen comparison), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 1: Overall survival
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 4: Treatment‐related death (safety population)
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 5: Nausea/vomiting (safety population)
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 6: Anaemia (safety population)
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 7: Hair loss (safety population)
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 8: Leukopenia (safety population)
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 2: by type of platinum agent in platinum arm), Outcome 9: Treatment discontinuation due to adverse event (safety population)
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 3: by first‐line therapy), Outcome 1: Overall survival
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 3: by first‐line therapy), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 3: by first‐line therapy), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 4: by taxane in regimens), Outcome 1: Overall survival
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 4: by taxane in regimens), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 4: by taxane in regimens), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 5: BRCA1/2 mutation status), Outcome 1: Overall survival
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 5: BRCA1/2 mutation status), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
6.3. Analysis
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 5: BRCA1/2 mutation status), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 6: homologous recombination deficient status), Outcome 1: Overall survival
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 6: homologous recombination deficient status), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (subgroup analysis 6: homologous recombination deficient status), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 1: included in OS meta‐analysis vs. not included in OS meta‐analysis), Outcome 1: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 1: included in OS meta‐analysis vs. not included in OS meta‐analysis), Outcome 2: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 2: Progression‐free survival vs. time to progression), Outcome 1: Progression‐free survival vs time to progression
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 3: Analyses 1 repeated but with random‐effects approach), Outcome 1: Overall survival
10.2. Analysis
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 3: Analyses 1 repeated but with random‐effects approach), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
10.3. Analysis
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 3: Analyses 1 repeated but with random‐effects approach), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
11.1. Analysis
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 4: mTNBC patients selected for trial vs. a subgroup of trial), Outcome 1: Overall survival
11.2. Analysis
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 4: mTNBC patients selected for trial vs. a subgroup of trial), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
11.3. Analysis
11.3. Analysis
Comparison 11: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 4: mTNBC patients selected for trial vs. a subgroup of trial), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)
12.1. Analysis
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 5: Analyses 1 repeated but with Carey 2012 excluded), Outcome 1: Overall survival
12.2. Analysis
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 5: Analyses 1 repeated but with Carey 2012 excluded), Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival/time to progression
12.3. Analysis
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12: Platinum vs non‐platinum regimens (sensitivity analysis 5: Analyses 1 repeated but with Carey 2012 excluded), Outcome 3: Objective tumour response rate (assessable participants)

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir