Evidence Hub

Cardiotoxicity of newer HER2-Directed therapies in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence and comparative risk

Sundaramoorthy S, Gokulanathan N, Joseph P R, Tm A, Mathew SP, Kaur H, Muthukumarasamy T, Jose J et al.

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2026

35,984 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the incidence and comparative risk of cardiotoxicity associated with newer HER2-targeted therapies compared with conventional trastuzumab-based regimens. It also evaluates the differences across drug classes, clinical subgroups, and monitoring strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus were searched (2005-2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies reporting cardiac outcomes with HER2-directed therapies. Pooled cardiotoxicity incidence was calculated from single-arm studies and intervention arms of RCTs and risk ratios (RRs) from RCTs using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed by drug class, anthracycline exposure, HER2 category, age, and cardiac monitoring frequency. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies (35,984 patients) were included. Pooled cardiotoxicity incidence was 5.08% (95% CI, 3.37 to 7.58) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline in 4.68% patients, and other cardiac events were each reported in 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Newer HER2-directed therapies demonstrate low cardiotoxicity, with rare serious events and no evidence of excess risk compared with conventional trastuzumab-based regimens. These findings support cardiac safety but suggest the need for standardized monitoring and uniform cardiotoxicity definitions.

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. Reported size: 35,984 participants or records.

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