Skip to main content

Table 2 All evidence network: mean PFS per intervention and difference in expected PFS for everolimus versus alternatives

From: A process for assessing the feasibility of a network meta-analysis: a case study of everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy versus chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer

Treatment

Mean PFS at 20 months*

95% CrI

Mean PFS at 40 months*

95% CrI

Tamoxifen

6.71

(5.31; 8.29)

7.05

(5.48; 9.11)

Exemestane

8.36

(4.55; 12.63)

9.04

(4.60; 16.47)

CD

7.97

(5.00; 11.91)

7.98

(5.00; 12.50)

MA

7.18

(4.51; 10.38)

7.42

(4.54; 11.85)

CMF

10.14

(5.85; 15.76)

10.23

(5.85; 20.36)

Mitoxantrone

7.71

(3.43; 13.03)

7.91

(3.43; 16.01)

Docetaxel

7.92

(4.37; 12.45)

7.93

(4.37; 13.30)

Doxorubicin

7.35

(3.96; 12.09)

7.36

(3.96; 12.80)

Epirubicin

6.16

(2.53; 12.17)

6.16

(2.53; 12.96)

Capecitabine

9.90

(5.03; 16.67)

9.96

(5.04; 22.43)

Paclitaxel

7.10

(3.78; 11.90)

7.11

(3.78; 12.50)

PLD

7.14

(3.09; 13.56)

7.15

(3.09; 15.12)

Nab paclitaxel

10.10

(5.42; 15.75)

10.15

(5.42; 18.33)

Liposomal doxorubicin

6.66

(3.12; 12.00)

6.66

(3.12; 12.38)

Vinorelbine

7.55

(2.99; 14.28)

7.60

(2.99; 17.71)

Exemestane + Everolimus

12.21

(6.21; 16.98)

14.14

(6.25; 26.72)

Tamoxifen + Everolimus

10.85

(5.16; 15.59)

13.62

(5.36; 24.79)

  1. *As obtained with random effects Weibull network meta-analysis model with time-varying hazard ratios and no covariates.
  2. CD, cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin; CMF, cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil; MA, megestrol acetate; PFS, progression-free survival; PLD, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; 95% CrI, 95% credible interval.