pathology | treatment | patient | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | lapatinib | not classified | versus endocrine therapy alone lapatinib + letrozole superior to letrozole alone in terms of PFS in Johnston (EGF30008) , 2009 lapatinib + letrozole inferior to letrozole alone in terms of SAE in Johnston (EGF30008) , 2009 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Johnston (EGF30008) , 2009 | lapatinib + letrozole vs letrozole alone | PFS 0.71 [0.53; 0.96] Demonstrated | SAE 2.00 [1.57; 2.55] | OS 0.78 [0.57; 1.07] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Johnston (EGF30008) , 2009 | daily letrozole (2.5 mg orally) plus lapatinib (1,500 mg orally) (n=1286) vs. letrozole (n=0) | hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1286/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | lapatinib | not classified | versus taxanes alone No demonstrated result for efficacy lapatinib + paclitaxel inferior to paclitaxel alone in terms of SAE in Di Leo, 2008 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Di Leo, 2008 | lapatinib + paclitaxel vs paclitaxel alone | | SAE 1.65 [1.16; 2.35] | OS 0.86 [0.69; 1.08] PFS 0.90 [0.75; 1.08] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Di Leo, 2008 | first-line therapy with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks plus lapatinib 1,500 mg/d (n=579) vs. paclitaxel (n=0) | first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 579/0 Primary endpoint: TTP FU duration: |
|
advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | sorafenib | not classified | versus CT alone No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Schwartzberg, 2013 | sorafenib + gemcitabine or capecitabine vs gemcitabine or capecitabine alone | PFS 0.64 [0.44; 0.93] | | OS 1.01 [0.71; 1.44] | Baselga, 2012 | sorafenib + capecitabine vs capecitabine alone | PFS 0.58 [0.41; 0.82] | | OS 0.86 [0.61; 1.22] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Schwartzberg, 2013 | sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | patients with HER-2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during or after bevacizumab | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Baselga, 2012 | - or second-line capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice a day for days 1 to 14 of every 21-day cycle with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day (n=-9) vs. capecitabine alone (n=-9) | HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: |
|
advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | sorafenib | not classified | versus taxanes alone No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Gradishar, 2013 | sorafenib + paclitaxel vs paclitaxel alone | | | OS 1.02 [0.71; 1.46] PFS 0.79 [0.56; 1.11] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Gradishar, 2013 | paclitaxel (90mg/m(2), weekly, intravenously, 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus sorafenib (400mg, orally, twice daily) (n=-9) vs. paclitaxel (90mg/m(2), weekly, intravenously, 3 weeks on/1 week off) (n=-9) | first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | apitolisib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Powles, 2014 | apitolisib vs everolimus | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Powles, 2014 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | axitinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
AXIS (Rini), 2011 | axitinib vs sorafenib | PFS 0.67 [0.54; 0.81] | | | Qin, 2012 | axitinib vs sorafenib | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
AXIS (Rini), 2011 | axitinib (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Qin, 2012 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | cabozantinib | after VEGFR-targeted therapy failure | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
METEOR, 2015 | cabozantinib vs everolimus | OS 0.67 [0.51; 0.89] PFS 0.58 [0.45; 0.75] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
METEOR, 2015 | cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg
daily (n=330) vs. everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily (n=328) | patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 330/328 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: phase 3 |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | cabozantinib | first-line therapy in patients with intermediate- or poor-risk | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CABOSUN, 2017 | cabozantinib vs sunitinib | PFS 0.66 [0.46; 0.95] median 8.2 mo vs. 5.6 mo | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CABOSUN, 2017 | cabozantinib (60 mg once per day) (n=79) vs. sunitinib (50 mg once per day; 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). (n=78) | untreated clear cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and were intermediate or poor risk per International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 79/78 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: phase 2 |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | dovitinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
GOLD | dovitinib vs sorafenib | | | PFS 0.86 [0.72; 1.03] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
GOLD | dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) (n=284) vs. sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) (n=286) | patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor | open-label Sample size: 284/286 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | pazopanib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Sternberg, 2010 | pazopanib vs placebo | PFS 0.46 [0.34; 0.62] | | | VEG105192, 2010 | pazopanib vs placebo | PFS 0.46 [0.34; 0.62] | | OS 0.91 [0.71; 1.16] | COMPARZ, 2013 | pazopanib vs sunitinib | | | OS 0.91 [0.76; 1.08] PFS 1.05 [0.90; 1.22] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Sternberg, 2010 | pazopanib (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: | VEG105192, 2010 | (n=290) vs. (n=145) | treatment-naive and
cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma | Sample size: 290/145 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: | COMPARZ, 2013 | continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily) (n=557) vs. sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment) (n=553) | patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, first line | Parallel groups Sample size: 557/553 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | sorafenib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Escudier, 2009 | sorafenib vs interferon alpha | | | PFS 0.88 [0.61; 1.27] | TARGET, 2007 | sorafenib vs placebo | PFS 0.44 [0.35; 0.55] | | OS 0.88 [0.74; 1.04] | Ratain, 2006 | sorafenib vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Escudier, 2009 | oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (n=97) vs. subcutaneous IFN--2a 9 million U three times weekly (n=92) | patients with untreated, advanced renal cancer. | Parallel groups Sample size: 97/92 Primary endpoint: FU duration: phase 2 | TARGET, 2007 | continuous treatment with oral sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) (n=451) vs. placebo (n=452) | patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to standard therapy | Parallel groups Sample size: 451/452 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: | Ratain, 2006 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | sunitinib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Motzer, 2007 | sunitinib vs interferon alpha | PFS 0.42 [0.32; 0.55] | | OS 0.82 [0.67; 1.00] | SWITCH | sunitinib vs sorafenib | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Motzer, 2007 | repeated 6-week cycles of sunitinib (at a dose of 50 mg given orally once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment) (n=375) vs. interferon alfa (at a dose of 9 MU given subcutaneously three times weekly). (n=375) | patients with previously untreated, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma | Sample size: 375/375 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: | SWITCH | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | tivozanib | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
TIVO-1, 2013 | tivozanib vs sorafenib | PFS 0.80 [0.64; 0.99] | | OS 1.25 [0.95; 1.63] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
TIVO-1, 2013 | tivozanib (n=260) vs. sorafenib (n=257) | initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma | Sample size: 260/257 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: |
|