Table 1 Overview of variation in potential treatment effect modifiers in the RCTs included in the progression-free survival analysis
Category | Study | Comparison | N | ER+ | ER NA or ER unknown | Failed HT adjuvant/ metastatic | Failed CT advanced/ metastatic | Visceral meta-stases | ECOG 0 or 1 | Median age (years) | Post-meno-pausal | HER2- | Type prior HT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comparisons | Baselga 2012, BOLERO-II [24] | EXE vs. EVE + EXE | 724 | 100% | 0% | 100% | NR | 56% | 96% | 62 | 100% | 100% | AIa |
Bachelot 2012, [28] TAMRAD | TAM vs. EVE + TAM | 111 | 100% | NR | 100% | 24% | 48% | 92% | 63 | 100% | 95% | AIa | |
HT vs. HT | EXE vs. TAM | 371 | 89% | 5% | 22% | 33% | 47% | 87% | 62 | 100% | NR | TAM | |
HT vs. HT | EXE vs. MA | 769 | 68% | 32% | 100% | 17% | 59% | NR | 65 | 100% | NR | TAM | |
HT vs. HT | TAM vs. MA | 136 | 58% | 34% | 3% | 10% | 37% | 79% | 62 | 100% | NR | NR | |
HT vs. HT | Ingle 1982 [48] | TAM vs. MA | 55 | NR | NR | 0% | NR | 44% | 79% | 49 | 48% | NR | NA |
HT vs. HT | Gill 1993 [44] | TAM vs. MA | 118 | 40% | 45% | 0% | 0% | 53% | NR | NR | 100% | NR | NA |
HT vs. CT | ANZBCTG 1986 [40] | TAM vs. CD | 226 | 16% | 73% | NR | NR | 38% | 60% | NR | 100% | NR | NR |
HT vs. CT | Dixon 1992 [43] | MA vs. MZ | 60 | 20% | 10% | 100% | 0% | 30% | 100% | 61 | 100% | NR | TAM |
HT vs. CT | Villalon 1993 [64] | MA vs. CMF | 48 | NR | NR | NR | 0% | NR | NR | NR | 83% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Cowan 1991 [68] | MZ vs. DOX | 237 | 40% | 13% | 55% | 59% | 67% | 73% | NR | 83% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Henderson 1989 [47] | MZ vs. DOX | 325 | 30% | 20% | 52% | 63% | 40% | 71% | NR | 85% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Katsumata 2009, [50] JCOG9802 | CD vs. DOC | 293 | 35% | 8% | 100% | 0% | 67% | 95% | 54 | NR | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | O'Shaughenessy 2001 [58] | CMF vs. CAP | 93 | NR | NR | 91% | 0% | 66% | NR | 70 | 100% | NR | 49% TAM |
CT vs. CT | Chan 1999 [65] | DOX vs. DOC | 326 | NR | NR | 71% | 58% | 76% | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Paridaens 2000 [59] | DOX vs. PAC | 331 | 24% | 37% | 74% | 0% | 75% | 91% | 55 | NR | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Sledge 2003, [63] E1193 | DOX vs. PAC | 453 | 46% | 29% | 60% | 0% | 61% | 85% | 58 | NR | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Bontenbal 1998, [42] EORTC 10811 | DOX vs. EPI | 232 | NR | NR | 36% | 98% | 42% | 73% | 56 | 92% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | O'Brien 2004 [57] | DOX vs. PLD | 509 | 40% | 37% | NR | 0% | 56% | 89% | 58 | 62% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Jones 2005 [49] | DOC vs. PAC | 449 | 56% | 44% | 60% | 58% | NR | NR | 56 | 88% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Beuselinck 2010, [41] BSMO | DOC vs. PAC | 70 | 42% | NR | NR | 81% | 78% | 84% | NR | 100% | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | DOC vs. Nab-PAC | 148 | NR | NR | NR | 0% | 91% | 97% | NR | 81% | NR | NR | |
CT vs. CT | Yardley 2009 [66] | DOC vs. L-DOX | 102 | 63% | 0% | 60% | 0% | 87% | 91% | 63 | NR | NR | NR |
CT vs. CT | Meier 2008 [54] | DOC vs. VIN | 120 | 60% | NR | NR | 90% | 90% | 74% | 60 | NR | NR | NR |