Progression-free survival with fulvestrant 500 mg and alternative endocrine therapies as second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: A network meta-analysis with parametric survival models

Value in Health

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 403-417

  Cope, Shannon ^a   Ouwens, Mario J N M ^b   Jansen, Jeroen P ^a   Schmid, Peter ^c  

^a MAPI Consultancy   (United States)

^b MAPI GROUP   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

fulvestrant; metastatic breast cancer; network meta analysis; progression free survival

Indexed keywords

AMINOGLUTETHIMIDE; ANASTROZOLE; EXEMESTANE; FULVESTRANT; LETROZOLE; MEGESTROL ACETATE;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER SURVIVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOADING DRUG DOSE; META ANALYSIS; POSTMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT DURATION;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, HORMONAL; BAYES THEOREM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; ESTRADIOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MARKOV CHAINS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; POSTMENOPAUSE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SALVAGE THERAPY;

EID: 84875474994     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.019     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU. Technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 2011; last updated August 2011. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/Evidence-Synthesis-TSD-series(2391675) .htm. [Accessed October 25, 2012].
2. A.M. Glenny, D.G. Altman, and F. Song Indirect comparisons of competing interventions Health Technol Assess 9 2005 1 134
3. J.P. Jansen, R. Fleurence, and B. Devine Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health care decision-making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices - Part 1 Value Health 14 2011 417 428
4. F. Song, D.G. Altman, A. Glenny, and J.J. Deeks Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses BMJ 326 2003 472
5. D.M. Caldwell, A.E. Ades, and J.P.T. Higgins Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence BMJ 331 2005 897 900
6. A. Sutton, A.E. Ades, N. Cooper, and K. Abrams Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment Pharmacoecnomics 26 2008 753 767
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to methods of technology appraisal. 2008. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/ A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. [Accessed October 25, 2012].
8. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3) December 2008 Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing Canberra, Australia
9. G.A. Wells, S.A. Sultan, and L. Chen Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis. Ottawa 2009 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Canada
10. G. Lu, and A.E. Ades Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons Stat Med 23 2004 3105 3124
11. P. Guyot, and M. Ouwens The use of survival analysis for cost-effectiveness models: an evaluation of methods in NICE appraisals Value Health 12 2009 A231
12. Philips Z Ouwens MJNM, and J.P. Jansen Network meta-analysis of parametric survival curves Res Synth Meth 1 2010 258 271
13. J.P. Jansen Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials BMC Med Res Methodol 11 2011 61
14. A. Di Leo, G. Jerusalem, and L. Petruzelka Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 4594 6000
15. S. Ohno, Y. Rai, and H. Iwata Three dose regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal Japanese women with advanced breast cancer: results from a double blind, phase II comparative study (FINDER1) Ann Oncol 21 2010 2342 2347
16. K.I. Pritchard, J. Rolski, and Z. Papai Results of a phase II study comparing three dosing regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (FINDER2) Breast Cancer Res Treat 123 2010 453 461
17. A. Howell, J.F. Robertson, and Quaresma Fulvestrant, formerly ICI 182,780, is as effective as anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing after prior endocrine treatment J Clin Oncol 20 2002 3396 3403
18. C.K. Osborne, J. Pippen, and S.E. Jones Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial J Clin Oncol 20 2002 3386 3395
19. D.J. Spiegelhalter, N.G. Best, B.P. Carlin, and A. van der Linde Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit J R Stat Soc (Series B) 64 2002 583 639
20. A.P. Dempster The direct use of likelihood for significance testing Stat Comput 7 1997 247 252
21. C. Rose, O. Vtoraya, and A. Pluzanska An open randomised trial of second-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison of the aromatase inhibitors letrozole and anastrozole Eur J Cancer 39 2003 2318 2327
22. S. Lundgren, S. Gundersen, and R. Klepp Megestrol acetate versus aminoglutethimide for metastatic breast cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 14 1989 201 206
23. A. Buzdar, W. Jonat, A. Howell Arimidex Study Group Anastrozole, a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor, versus megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of overview analysis of two phase III trials J Clin Oncol 14 1996 2000 2011
24. A.U. Buzdar, W. Jonat, and A. Howell Anastrozole versus megestrol acetate in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma Cancer 83 1998 1142 1152
25. A. Buzdar, J. Douma, and N. Davidson Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, for advanced breast cancer versus megestrol acetate J Clin Oncol 15 2001 3357 3366
26. S. Chia, and W. Gradishar Fulvestrant: expanding the endocrine treatment options for patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast ca!ncer Breast 17 Suppl. 3 2008 S16 S21
27. P. Dombernowsky, I. Smith, and G. Falkson Letrozole, a new oral aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer: double-blind randomized trial showing a dose effect and improved efficacy and tolerability compared with megestrol acetate J Clin Oncol 16 1998 453 461
28. M. Gershanovich, H.A. Chaudri, and D. Campos Letrozole, a new oral aromatase inhibitor: randomised trial comparing 2.5 mg daily, 0.5 mg daily and aminoglutethimide in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer Ann Oncol 9 1998 639 645
29. M. Kaufmann, E. Bajetta, and L.Y. Dirix Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized double-blind trial J Clin Oncol 18 2000 1399 1411
30. P. Royston, and MKB Parmar Flexible proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modeling and estimation of treatment effects Stat Med 21 2002 2175 2197
31. F. Siannis, J.K. Barrett, V.T. Farewell, and J.F. Tierney One-stage parametric meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes Stat Med 29 2010 3030 3045
32. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials. 2011. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/Evidence-Synthesis-TSD- series(2391675).htm. [Accessed October 25, 2012].
33. P. Guyot, A.E. Ades, MJNM Ouwens, and N.J. Welton Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves BMC Med Res Methodol 12 2012 9