| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | All results are NS for efficacy inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Gale, 1994 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Gale, 1994 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of nausea in Ingle, 1986 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of rash in Ingle, 1986 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Powles, 1984 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of nausea in Powles, 1984 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of rash in Powles, 1984 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Russell, 1997 inferior to tamoxifen in terms of rash in Russell, 1997 | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Alonso-Munoz, 1988 | 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] | | Canney, 1988 | vs tamoxifen | 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; ∞] | | Gale, 1994 | 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] | | Garcia-Giralt, 1992 | vs tamoxifen | | | 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] | | Ingle, 1986 | 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] | | Lundgren, 1989 | vs tamoxifen | | | 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 | vs tamoxifen | | | 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] | | Powles, 1984 | 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] | | Samonis, 1994 | vs tamoxifen | | | 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 | vs tamoxifen | | 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 |
|---|
| Alonso-Munoz, 1988 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | advanced postmenopausal breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | 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: | | Gale, 1994 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer | 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: | | Ingle, 1986 | tamoxifen alone (n=-9) vs. TAM plus aminoglutethimide (AG) and hydrocortisone (HC). (n=-9) | | 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: | | 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: | | 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: |
|
