| pathology | treatment | patient | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
|---|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | aminoglutethimide | not classified | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy aminoglutethimide inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Gale, 1994 aminoglutethimide inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Gale, 1994 aminoglutethimide + tamoxifen inferior to tamoxifen in terms of nausea in Ingle, 1986 aminoglutethimide + tamoxifen inferior to tamoxifen in terms of rash in Ingle, 1986 combination of hormone therapies inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Powles, 1984 combination of hormone therapies inferior to tamoxifen in terms of nausea in Powles, 1984 combination of hormone therapies inferior to tamoxifen in terms of rash in Powles, 1984 | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Alonso-Munoz, 1988 | aminoglutethimide vs tamoxifen | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.02 [0.81; 1.29] Objective response (assessable) 1.09 [0.68; 1.77] Objective response (randomised) 1.20 [0.73; 1.98] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.12 [0.86; 1.46] | | Gale, 1994 | aminoglutethimide vs tamoxifen | | Objective response (assessable) 0.61 [0.42; 0.88] Objective response (randomised) 0.63 [0.43; 0.92] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.86 [0.72; 1.01] overall survival (reported or calculated) 1.12 [0.51; 2.45] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.84 [0.41; 1.70] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.88 [0.72; 1.06] | | Ingle, 1986 | aminoglutethimide + tamoxifen vs tamoxifen | | nausea 2.16 [1.25; 3.72] rash 7.67 [3.64; 16.17] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.87 [0.57; 1.34] Objective response (assessable) 0.87 [0.57; 1.34] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.79 [0.30; 2.11] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.85 [0.33; 2.17] Objective response (randomised) 1.24 [0.81; 1.90] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.87 [0.57; 1.34] hot flushes 0.96 [0.90; 1.02] | | Powles, 1984 | combination of hormone therapies vs tamoxifen | | Objective response (assessable) 0.71 [0.50; 0.99] nausea 2.70 [1.37; 5.31] rash 16.00 [2.16; 118.59] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.82 [0.66; 1.03] vomiting 2.50 [0.81; 7.73] diarrhoea ∞ [NaN; ∞] Objective response (randomised) 0.71 [0.50; 1.01] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.82 [0.65; 1.04] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Alonso-Munoz, 1988 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | advanced postmenopausal breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Gale, 1994 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Ingle, 1986 | tamoxifen alone (n=-9) vs. TAM plus aminoglutethimide (AG) and hydrocortisone (HC). (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Powles, 1984 | combination of hormone therapies using tamoxifen, aminoglutethimide with hydrocortisone, and danazol (TAD) (n=-9) vs. tamoxifen (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | aminoglutethimide | not classified | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy aminoglutethimide inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Russell, 1997 aminoglutethimide inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of rash in Russell, 1997 | 6 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Canney, 1988 | aminoglutethimide vs medroxyprogesterone acetate | vaginal bleeding 0.11 [0.01; 0.81] hot flushes 0.23 [0.07; 0.77] | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.07 [0.83; 1.38] Objective response (assessable) 1.27 [0.83; 1.96] Objective response (randomised) 1.27 [0.83; 1.96] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.07 [0.83; 1.38] rash ∞ [NaN; ∞] | | Garcia-Giralt, 1992 | aminoglutethimide vs medroxyprogesterone acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.89 [0.77; 1.04] Objective response (assessable) 0.90 [0.64; 1.26] Objective response (randomised) 1.17 [0.97; 1.42] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.04 [0.91; 1.18] | | Lundgren, 1989 | aminoglutethimide vs megestrol acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.92 [0.71; 1.19] Objective response (assessable) 0.91 [0.57; 1.44] Objective response (randomised) 0.85 [0.52; 1.36] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.92 [0.71; 1.19] rash ∞ [NaN; ∞] | | Mercer, 1993 | aminoglutethimide vs hydrocortisone | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.21 [0.64; 2.29] Objective response (assessable) 1.55 [0.41; 5.88] Objective response (randomised) 1.41 [0.37; 5.40] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.10 [0.57; 2.12] | | Samonis, 1994 | aminoglutethimide vs medroxyprogesterone acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.96 [0.67; 1.39] Objective response (assessable) 0.93 [0.45; 1.93] nausea ∞ [NaN; ∞] Objective response (randomised) 0.87 [0.42; 1.81] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.97 [0.65; 1.44] vaginal bleeding 0.00 [0.00; NaN] rash ∞ [NaN; ∞] | | Russell, 1997 | aminoglutethimide vs megestrol acetate | | Objective response (randomised) 0.21 [0.05; 0.94] rash 12.14 [2.96; 49.81] | Objective response (assessable) 0.26 [0.06; 1.12] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.89 [0.40; 2.00] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 1.25 [0.57; 2.75] thromboembolic 1.01 [0.15; 7.02] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Canney, 1988 | aminoglutethimide (n=-9) vs. high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with advanced breast carcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Garcia-Giralt, 1992 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | and third line hormonotherapy in advanced post-menopausal breast cancerpatients who have become resistant to tamoxifen | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Lundgren, 1989 | aminoglutethimide (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | second-line treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Mercer, 1993 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | second-line hormone treatment of advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Samonis, 1994 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | women with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Russell, 1997 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | second-line endocrine therapy of estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | anastrozole | not classified | versus different AI No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Mauriac, 2003 | anastrozole vs fulvestrant | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.06 [0.91; 1.24] Objective response (assessable) 1.16 [0.87; 1.55] vomiting 0.91 [0.64; 1.30] diarrhoea 1.32 [0.87; 2.01] nausea 0.97 [0.77; 1.22] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 1.34 [0.79; 2.28] Objective response (randomised) 1.16 [0.87; 1.55] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.06 [0.91; 1.24] thromboembolic 1.13 [0.57; 2.24] rash 1.33 [0.80; 2.22] hot flushes 0.98 [0.75; 1.27] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Mauriac, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | anastrozole | not classified | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy anastrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Clinical benefit (assessable) in Milla-Santos, 2003 anastrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Clinical benefit (randomised) in Milla-Santos, 2003 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| TARGET (Bonneterre), 2001 | anastrozole vs tamoxifen | thromboembolic 0.55 [0.31; 0.97] | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.91 [0.81; 1.02] Objective response (assessable) 0.93 [0.77; 1.14] vomiting 1.07 [0.69; 1.65] diarrhoea 1.22 [0.79; 1.91] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.97 [0.53; 1.77] nausea 0.90 [0.70; 1.15] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.82 [0.48; 1.40] Objective response (randomised) 0.93 [0.77; 1.14] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.91 [0.81; 1.02] vaginal bleeding 0.46 [0.16; 1.31] hot flushes 1.15 [0.93; 1.42] | | Milla-Santos, 2003 | anastrozole vs tamoxifen | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.67 [0.56; 0.81] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.67 [0.56; 0.81] | Objective response (assessable) 0.75 [0.51; 1.10] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.92 [0.43; 1.98] Objective response (randomised) 0.75 [0.51; 1.10] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| TARGET (Bonneterre), 2001 | anastrozole
1 mg once daily (n=340) vs. tamoxifen 20 mg
once daily (n=328) | first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in 353 postmenopausal women | Parallel groups Sample size: 340/328 Primary endpoint: TTP FU duration: | | Milla-Santos, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | -line therapy in postmenopausal, hormone-dependent, advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | anastrozole | not classified | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy anastrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of diarrhoea in Buzdar a, 1996 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Buzdar a, 1996 | anastrozole vs megestrol acetate | | diarrhoea 3.17 [1.39; 7.26] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.96 [0.78; 1.17] Objective response (assessable) 0.98 [0.62; 1.55] vomiting 1.53 [0.86; 2.74] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.78 [0.39; 1.57] nausea 1.39 [0.91; 2.11] Objective response (randomised) 0.98 [0.62; 1.55] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.96 [0.78; 1.17] thromboembolic 0.72 [0.31; 1.69] vaginal bleeding 0.48 [0.20; 1.18] rash 0.74 [0.39; 1.38] hot flushes 1.56 [0.93; 2.62] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Buzdar a, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | exemestane | not classified | versus different AI No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Chia, 2008 | exemestane vs fulvestrant | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.02 [0.80; 1.31] Objective response (assessable) 1.11 [0.60; 2.05] diarrhoea 0.86 [0.37; 1.95] nausea 1.15 [0.68; 1.96] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 1.04 [0.52; 2.07] Objective response (randomised) 1.08 [0.58; 2.01] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.00 [0.77; 1.29] hot flushes 1.29 [0.83; 2.02] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Chia, 2008 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | exemestane | not classified | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy exemestane inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Paridaens, 2003 exemestane inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Paridaens, 2003 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Paridaens, 2003 | exemestane vs tamoxifen | | Objective response (assessable) 0.39 [0.21; 0.74] Objective response (randomised) 0.41 [0.22; 0.79] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.70 [0.49; 1.00] nausea 0.63 [0.36; 1.13] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.74 [0.51; 1.07] arthralgia 1.74 [0.69; 4.42] hot flushes 0.79 [0.52; 1.18] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Paridaens, 2003 | exemestane (n=-9) vs. tamoxifen (n=-9) | first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | exemestane | not classified | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy exemestane inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of vomiting in Kaufmann, 2000 exemestane inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of nausea in Kaufmann, 2000 exemestane inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of hot flushes in Kaufmann, 2000 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Kaufmann, 2000 | exemestane vs megestrol acetate | | vomiting 3.72 [1.03; 13.43] nausea 1.84 [1.08; 3.15] hot flushes 2.51 [1.51; 4.17] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.93 [0.77; 1.13] Objective response (assessable) 0.84 [0.59; 1.19] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.85 [0.49; 1.48] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.82 [0.46; 1.45] Objective response (randomised) 0.83 [0.58; 1.18] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.92 [0.76; 1.12] rash ∞ [NaN; ∞] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Kaufmann, 2000 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | fadrozole | not classified | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Thuerlimann, 1996 | fadrozole vs tamoxifen | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.02 [0.88; 1.19] Objective response (assessable) 1.34 [0.82; 2.19] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.91 [0.39; 2.13] Objective response (randomised) 1.39 [0.85; 2.29] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.06 [0.90; 1.25] thromboembolic 0.00 [0.00; NaN] rash ∞ [NaN; ∞] hot flushes 0.99 [0.61; 1.60] | | Falkson, 1996 | fadrozole vs tamoxifen | | | Objective response (assessable) 0.89 [0.55; 1.45] Objective response (randomised) 0.94 [0.57; 1.55] hot flushes 0.91 [0.51; 1.65] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Thuerlimann, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Falkson, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously untreated postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | fadrozole | not classified | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy fadrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of nausea in Buzdar b, 1996 fadrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of vomiting in Buzdar c, 1996 fadrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of nausea in Buzdar c, 1996 | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Bezwoda, 1998 | fadrozole vs megestrol acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.74 [0.21; 2.57] Objective response (assessable) 0.92 [0.20; 4.33] overall survival (reported or calculated) 1.35 [0.49; 3.73] nausea 1.49 [0.66; 3.39] Objective response (randomised) 0.92 [0.20; 4.33] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.74 [0.21; 2.57] hot flushes 2.90 [0.82; 10.27] | | Buzdar b, 1996 | fadrozole vs megestrol acetate | | nausea 1.68 [1.06; 2.66] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.98 [0.75; 1.29] Objective response (assessable) 1.45 [0.87; 2.41] vomiting 1.88 [0.87; 4.07] diarrhoea 1.15 [0.64; 2.07] Objective response (randomised) 1.45 [0.87; 2.42] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.99 [0.75; 1.30] arthralgia 0.55 [0.22; 1.36] rash 0.65 [0.31; 1.35] hot flushes 1.27 [0.70; 2.30] | | Buzdar c, 1996 | fadrozole vs megestrol acetate | | vomiting 2.53 [1.31; 4.89] nausea 3.21 [1.96; 5.27] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.10 [0.83; 1.46] Objective response (assessable) 0.86 [0.47; 1.58] diarrhoea 0.88 [0.45; 1.69] Objective response (randomised) 0.86 [0.47; 1.57] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.10 [0.83; 1.46] arthralgia 1.21 [0.62; 2.36] rash 1.38 [0.70; 2.71] hot flushes 1.29 [0.71; 2.32] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Bezwoda, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Buzdar b, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast carcinoma: | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Buzdar c, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast carcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | formestane | not classified | versus different AI No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Kleeberg, 1997 | formestane vs anastrozole | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.17 [0.66; 2.06] Objective response (assessable) 0.56 [0.15; 2.14] Objective response (randomised) 0.56 [0.15; 2.14] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.17 [0.66; 2.06] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Kleeberg, 1997 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | formestane | not classified | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Perez Carrion, 1994 | formestane vs tamoxifen | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.10 [0.95; 1.28] Objective response (assessable) 1.13 [0.85; 1.50] Objective response (randomised) 1.12 [0.83; 1.51] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.10 [0.93; 1.30] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Perez Carrion, 1994 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | formestane | not classified | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Thuerlimann, 1997 | formestane vs megestrol acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.89 [0.69; 1.15] Objective response (assessable) 1.01 [0.52; 1.97] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.93 [0.42; 2.05] Objective response (randomised) 0.99 [0.51; 1.92] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.87 [0.67; 1.12] thromboembolic 0.13 [0.02; 1.02] hot flushes 1.30 [0.88; 1.92] | | Freue, 2000 | formestane vs megestrol acetate | vaginal bleeding 0.08 [0.01; 0.57] | | Objective response (assessable) 1.25 [0.88; 1.77] nausea 0.98 [0.40; 2.44] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 1.06 [0.61; 1.85] Objective response (randomised) 1.24 [0.87; 1.78] rash 1.31 [0.30; 5.79] hot flushes 1.20 [0.51; 2.85] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Thuerlimann, 1997 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Freue, 2000 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with tamoxifen | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | letrozole | not classified | versus combination No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Goss, 2007 | letrozole vs atamestane + toremifene | | | overall survival (reported) 0.98 [0.60; 1.60] Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.97 [0.88; 1.06] Objective response (assessable) 0.85 [0.72; 1.01] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 1.00 [0.67; 1.49] Objective response (randomised) 0.85 [0.70; 1.03] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.96 [0.85; 1.09] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Goss, 2007 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced receptor-positive breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | letrozole | not classified | versus different AI No demonstrated result for efficacy letrozole inferior to anastrozole in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Rose, 2003 letrozole inferior to anastrozole in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Rose, 2003 letrozole inferior to fadrozole in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Tominaga, 2003 letrozole inferior to fadrozole in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Tominaga, 2003 | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Gershanovich, 1998 | letrozole vs aminoglutethimide | | | overall survival (reported) 0.64 [0.31; 1.33] Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.83 [0.62; 1.11] Objective response (assessable) 0.65 [0.40; 1.06] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.72 [0.36; 1.43] Objective response (randomised) 0.64 [0.39; 1.04] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.81 [0.60; 1.09] | | Rose, 2003 | letrozole vs anastrozole | | Objective response (assessable) 0.64 [0.45; 0.90] Objective response (randomised) 0.65 [0.45; 0.92] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.84 [0.66; 1.08] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.85 [0.66; 1.10] | | Tominaga, 2003 | letrozole vs fadrozole | | Objective response (assessable) 0.42 [0.21; 0.81] Objective response (randomised) 0.42 [0.22; 0.82] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.69 [0.48; 1.01] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.70 [0.48; 1.02] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Gershanovich, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, previously treated with anti-estrogens | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Rose, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | second-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Tominaga, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | letrozole | not classified | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Clinical benefit (assessable) in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of diarrhoea in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Clinical benefit (randomised) in Mourisden, 2001 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Mourisden, 2001 | letrozole vs tamoxifen | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.78 [0.67; 0.90] Objective response (assessable) 0.67 [0.53; 0.84] diarrhoea 9.00 [1.14; 70.75] Objective response (randomised) 0.67 [0.53; 0.84] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.78 [0.67; 0.91] | nausea 1.01 [0.76; 1.35] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.70 [0.40; 1.22] arthralgia 1.06 [0.78; 1.44] hot flushes 1.14 [0.85; 1.51] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Mourisden, 2001 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | letrozole | not classified | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Buzdar, 2001 | letrozole vs megestrol acetate | vaginal bleeding 0.08 [0.01; 0.64] | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.90 [0.64; 1.25] Objective response (assessable) 0.95 [0.60; 1.49] diarrhoea 1.01 [0.30; 3.44] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.92 [0.47; 1.82] nausea 1.12 [0.62; 2.01] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.99 [0.51; 1.91] Objective response (randomised) 1.04 [0.66; 1.63] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.88 [0.62; 1.23] hot flushes 0.97 [0.57; 1.64] | | Dombernowsky, 1998 | letrozole vs megestrol acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.92 [0.69; 1.22] Objective response (assessable) 0.70 [0.46; 1.05] vomiting 1.41 [0.64; 3.14] diarrhoea 2.39 [0.85; 6.74] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.82 [0.40; 1.70] nausea 1.21 [0.65; 2.26] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.98 [0.49; 1.95] Objective response (randomised) 0.70 [0.46; 1.06] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.92 [0.69; 1.23] arthralgia 1.67 [0.90; 3.09] rash 1.81 [0.67; 4.88] hot flushes 1.55 [0.60; 3.99] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Buzdar, 2001 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Dombernowsky, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with locally advanced, locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
