Search

Simple Summary: Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer develop brain metastases in up to 30% of cases. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of different systemic therapies in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases, acknowledging the heterogeneity and sometimes low quality of 51 included studies. Tucatinib (combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine) and trastuzumab-deruxtecan appear to constitute the most effective systemic therapy, while pyrotinib might be an option in Asian patients. Preferably, future research will comprise of randomized controlled trials, including patients with active and/or inactive brain metastases. Aim: Patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) develop brain metastases (BM) in up to 30% of cases. Treatment of patients with BM can consist of local treatment (surgery and/or radiotherapy) and/or systemic treatment. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of different systemic therapies in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM. Methods: A systematic search was performed in the databases PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and the Wiley/Cochrane Library. Eligible articles included prospective or retrospective studies reporting on the effect of systemic therapy on objective response rate (ORR) and/or median progression free survival (mPFS) in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM. The timeframe within the databases was from inception to 19 January 2022. Fixed-effects meta-analyses were used. Quality appraisal was performed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Fifty-one studies were included, involving 3118 patients. Most studies, which contained the largest patient numbers, but also often carried a moderate-serious risk of bias, investigated lapatinib and capecitabine (LC), trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) or pyrotinib. The best quality data and/or highest ORR were described with tucatinib (combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine, TTC) and trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd). TTC demonstrated an ORR of 47.3% in patients with asymptomatic and/or active BM. T-DXd achieved a pooled ORR of 64% (95% CI 43–85%, I2 0%) in a heavily pretreated population with asymptomatic BM (3 studies, n = 96). Conclusions: Though our meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of included studies and a related serious risk of bias, this review provides a comprehensive overview of all currently available systemic treatment options. T-Dxd and TTC that appear to constitute the most effective systemic therapy in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM, while pyrotinib might be an option in Asian patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a systematic review for evidence of the clinical efficacy of cancer immunotherapies. We searched PubMed from inception to 14 February 2018 for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer immunotherapies. Re-analyses were performed to estimate the summary effect size under random-effects, the 95% confidence interval (CI), heterogeneity, and the 95% prediction interval, and we determined the strength of the evidence. We examined publication bias and excess significance bias. 63 articles corresponding to 247 meta-analyses were eligible. Nine meta-analyses were classified to have convincing evidence, and 75 were classified as suggestive evidence. The clinical benefit of immunotherapy was supported by convincing evidence in the following settings: anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for treating advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the combination of rituximab and chemotherapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia and B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, adoptive cell immunotherapy for NSCLC, and the combination of interferon α and chemotherapy for metastatic melanoma. A further meta-analysis of 16 RCTs showed that anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy had a benefit in patients with solid tumors (overall survival; hazard ratio = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.68–0.79; p < 0.001), supported by convincing evidence. In the future, rigorous approaches are needed when interpreting meta-analyses to gain better insight into the true efficacy of cancer immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]