Evidence Hub

mTOR inhibitors, a new era for metastatic luminal HER2-negative breast cancer? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Rotundo MS, Galeano T, Tassone P, Tagliaferri P

Oncotarget, 2016

Abstract

We evaluated if standard hormonal therapy (HT) could be improved by the addition of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR-I) in metastatic luminal breast cancer. A meta-analysis on 4 phase II-III randomized clinical trials was performed. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression free survival (PFS)/ time to progression (TTP) was 0.62 in favor of mTOR-I+HT arm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.70; p<0.0001). There was significant heterogeneity for PFS/TTP (Cochran's Q 32, p<0.0001, I2 index 90.6%). Pooled HR for overall survival (OS) was 0.84 in favor of the combination arm (95% CI 0.71-0.99; p=0.04). Heterogeneity was not significant (Cochran's Q 4.47, p=0.1, I2 index 55.3%). Pooled risk ratio (RR) for objective response rate (ORR) was 0.88 in favor of experimental arm (95% CI 0.85-0.91; p<0.0001). Heterogeneity was not significant (Cochran's Q 2.11, p=0.3, I2 index 5.2%). Adverse events (AEs), in particular those of grade 3-4, mostly occurred in mTOR-I+HT arm. Combination therapy of HT plus mTOR-I improves the outcome of metastatic luminal breast cancer patients. Our results provide evidence of a class-effect of these targeting molecules.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free