Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Herceptin® (trastuzumab) in HER2-positive early breast cancer: a systematic review and cumulative network meta-analysis

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 4, 5,
  • 6 and
  • 1Email authorView ORCID ID profile
Systematic Reviews20187:191

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0854-y

  • Received: 15 July 2018
  • Accepted: 23 October 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Originator trastuzumab (Herceptin®; H) is an antibody-targeted therapy to treat patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (EBC). We investigated the overall survival (OS) advantage conferred by the addition of H to chemotherapy for HER2+ EBC patients and how the OS advantage changed over time.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) published from January 1, 1990 to January 19, 2017, comparing systemic therapies used in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings to treat HER2+ EBC patients. Bayesian cumulative network meta-analyses (cNMAs) of OS were conducted to assess the published literature over time. Heterogeneity was assessed through sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Results

The SLR identified 31 unique studies (28 RCTs, 3 NRSs) included in the OS analyses from 2008 to 2016. In the reference case cNMA (RCTs alone), initial evidence demonstrated an OS advantage for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HER2+ EBC patients. As additional OS data were published, the precision around this survival benefit strengthened over time. Both H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy and H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens provided similar OS advantages for HER2+ EBC patients.

Conclusion

This analysis represents the most comprehensive SLR/cNMA to date of published OS data in HER2+ EBC studies. These findings demonstrate why H/chemotherapy is now the established standard of care in HER2+ EBC. In the case of H, the benefits of early patient access far outweighed the risk of waiting for more precise information.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42017055763

Keywords

  • Early breast cancer
  • HER2-positive breast cancer
  • Network meta-analysis
  • Survival
  • Systematic review
  • Trastuzumab

Background

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) is an aggressive disease that makes up approximately 20% of all invasive BC [1, 2]. Early stage BC (EBC) describes disease that is detected in the breast and nearby lymph nodes but has not spread to distant areas of the body [3]. Recommended treatment of EBC is a multi-step approach that often includes neoadjuvant therapy, surgery, and adjuvant therapy [46]. Therapy for HER2+ EBC should be based on a patient’s predicted sensitivity to treatments, underlying comorbidities, likelihood of benefit, and risk of relapse [4, 6]. The development of HER2-targeted therapies has revolutionized the treatment of HER2+ BC that was previously associated with high relapse and mortality rates. Current guidelines suggest that HER2+ EBC patients should receive chemotherapy and anti-HER2 agents, such as originator trastuzumab (Herceptin®; H) [4, 6, 7].

As an antibody-targeted therapy, H binds to the extracellular domain IV of HER2, thereby inhibiting downstream cell signaling implicated in cell proliferation, motility, adhesion, and survival [8]. Initially approved by all major regulatory bodies for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [912], approved use of H was expanded to HER2+ EBC in 2006 [1315]. Clinical trials in HER2+ EBC and MBC have established that treatment with H/chemotherapy increases disease-free and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone [1620]. Concomitant administration of anthracyclines with H can produce cardiotoxic effects, so non-anthracycline-containing regimens may be beneficial for some patients [5, 21, 22]. A sequential regimen of anthracyclines and H/taxanes is appropriate for most patients [4, 5]. H for 1 year administered with an acceptable chemotherapy regimen is the recommended standard of care for EBC [46].

The efficacy of H for the treatment of HER2+ EBC has been demonstrated in phase II and phase III clinical trials; however, an assessment of the accumulation of publicly available evidence over time has not been made. Here, we report the results of a systematic literature review (SLR) and cumulative network meta-analysis (cNMA) that evaluates the survival advantage conferred by the addition of H to chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of HER2+ EBC, and how the certainty of this survival advantage has changed over time.

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

The SLR/NMA protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017055763), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, and has been described previously [23]. Our SLR was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines [24]. A completed checklist is provided in the Additional file 1.

Briefly, an SLR was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) of systemic therapies used in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings to treat adults with HER2+ EBC, locally advanced BC, or inflammatory BC. Database searches were performed using a predefined, peer-reviewed search strategy, spanning from January 1, 1990 to January 19, 2017 (Additional file 1) [23]. Studies were reviewed in duplicate based on prespecified eligibility criteria (Additional file 1) [23]. Data were extracted from included studies based on prespecified categories. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted for the outcomes of interest. OS was the primary outcome of interest and is the focus of our analyses [23]. No adverse events or safety information were extracted as per protocol, other than the number of deaths. A risk of bias assessment of included studies was completed as described [23].

Data analysis

Network meta-analysis is an approach that allows the simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments that may not have been compared directly in the same study [2527]. A traditional NMA provides an assessment of all available evidence at a particular time point. To investigate how the evidence for H has changed over time, we performed a Bayesian cNMA based on well-established methods by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [28, 29]. A cNMA is a series of NMAs sequenced chronologically based on the publication dates of studies, wherein each NMA incorporates additional studies over time. We evaluated the available evidence for the survival advantage conferred by H/chemotherapy regimens of interest over 2-year intervals from 2008 to 2016. We performed separate NMAs for each time interval so that each NMA included all publicly available evidence published from 1990 until that time point. The publication of newer trial results replaced the corresponding older results for the same trial. Evidence networks show each treatment as a node and comparisons between treatments are shown as lines linking the nodes. Node size reflects sample size and line width reflects the number of studies included in the connection. The networks expand as new evidence is added over time, and nodes and connections increase accordingly.

We categorized studies based on the proportion of HER2+ patients, and only 100% HER2+ EBC patients were included in analyses. For studies that included < 100% HER2+ EBC patients, we extracted OS data from HER2+ subgroups when possible. Our reference case included all RCTs (100% HER2+ patients and HER2+ subgroups), and we conducted sensitivity analyses for (1) RCTs with 100% HER2+ patients, and (2) RCTs with 100% HER2+ patients, RCTs with HER2+ subgroups, and NRS. We focused on pairwise comparisons between the two most widely used H regimens and a reference treatment. The recommended treatment duration for H is 52 weeks [5, 6, 30], and the two most widely used and recommended regimens at this duration are AC-TH52 weeks (anthracycline/taxane-containing chemotherapy with H intravenous [IV]) and TCH52 weeks (non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy with H IV) [47, 13, 15]. A standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of anthracycline/taxane-containing chemotherapy (AC-T) was selected as the reference treatment.

Random effects (RE) models were performed as primary analyses with vague priors assigned to basic parameters throughout. For vague priors, we assumed a uniform distribution (i.e., uniform [0, 5]) for between-study variance, as recommended by NICE [28]. Fixed-effect (FE) models were reported as sensitivity analyses. In accordance with NICE Technical Support Document methods, the log HR was treated as a continuous outcome and the final results were subsequently exponentiated [28, 29]. As a measure of the association between each treatment and its efficacy, Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to model HR point estimates and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for each pairwise comparison. Estimates with 95% CrIs that excluded the null value of 1 were considered to reflect statistically significant differences between interventions. HRs < 1 corresponded to beneficial treatment effects of the first treatment compared with the second treatment. We generated values to show the probability of the first treatment being better than the second treatment within each pairwise comparison (p[better]) [31]. To assess model fit, the posterior residual deviance from each NMA was compared to the corresponding number of unconstrained data points.

Analyses were conducted using WinBUGS (version 1.4.3, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) and R (version 3.2.2, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Three chains were fitted in WinBUGS for each analysis, with a burn-in of at least 40,000 iterations and subsequent iterations of at least 40,000 (WinBUGS code is available upon request). Model convergence was assessed using trace plots, the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin statistic, and inspection of Monte Carlo errors [28].

Assessment of heterogeneity and inconsistency

We attempted to conduct sensitivity analyses to combine RCTs and NRS. Including high-quality NRS can allow larger, diverse populations to be captured, and can allow the consideration of treatments that may not have been studied in RCTs; however, including low-quality NRS can introduce confounding bias if the baseline characteristics and risk factors in the treatment groups are substantially different [25, 32, 33]. We assessed the statistical methods of eligible NRS and only included the highest quality studies with appropriately adjusted effect estimates. We also assessed study and patient characteristics in all studies to ensure similarity and to investigate the impact of heterogeneity. A Bayesian hierarchical model that includes a study-design level is generally considered the most flexible for combining RCTs and NRS [3437], but the structure of our evidence networks did not permit this analysis (Additional file 1). Instead, we performed a sensitivity analysis that naïvely combined RCTs and NRS. To assess the robustness of the reference case analysis, we also conducted a sensitivity analysis using whole survival curves rather than hazard ratios.

We considered the following subgroup analyses: neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy, node-positive BC (N1–N3), node-negative BC (N0), hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC, hormone receptor-negative (HR−) BC, large tumors (≥ 2 cm), and small tumors (< 2 cm). We investigated anthracycline-containing versus non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy by focusing on the pairwise comparison of AC-TH52 weeks versus TCH52 weeks.

Inconsistency in the evidence networks was assessed by comparing the posterior residual deviance and deviance information criterion (DIC) statistics in fitted consistency and inconsistency models [38]. The posterior mean deviance of the individual data points in the inconsistency model was plotted against the corresponding posterior mean deviance in the consistency model to identify potential studies contributing to inconsistency (Additional file 1).

Role of the funding source

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. funded this study. All authors had access to and the opportunity to review final study data, and are responsible for data interpretation and preparation of the report. All authors attest to study completeness, data accuracy, and data analysis, and all were responsible for the final decision to submit for publication.

Results

Figure 1 outlines the PRISMA diagram for the literature review. In total, 187 publications reporting on 135 unique studies met our inclusion criteria; however, only 36 publications reporting on 31 unique studies (28 RCTs and 3 NRS) reported OS and were included in our analyses (Table 1). Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias (Additional file 1). Several RCTs allowed for crossover, but a lack of information prevented us from performing a sensitivity analysis (Additional file 1). Table 2 and the Additional file 1 summarize the 28 publications with OS results. Studies were conducted internationally, and median patient age ranged from 48 to 56 years. Approximately 15–100% of study patients were node-positive, 19–81% had HR+ tumors, and 45–100% had tumors ≥ 2 cm. Details of evidence networks and HRs used in analyses are available in the Additional file 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram. MA meta-analysis, NMA network meta-analysis, OS overall survival, PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, RCT randomized controlled trial, SLR systematic literature review

Table 1

Studies included in the cumulative NMA for overall survival

 

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

RCTs: 100% HER2+

ALTTO

(Piccart-Gebhart 2016) [66]

BCIRG 006

(Slamon 2011) [44]

BCIRG 006

(Slamon 2011) [44]

BCIRG 006

(Slamon 2015) [21]

FNCLCC-PACS 04

(Spielmann 2009) [67]

FNCLCC-PACS 04

(Spielmann 2009) [67]

FNCLCC-PACS 04

(Spielmann 2009) [67]

FNCLCC-PACS 04

(Spielmann 2009) [67]

HannaH

(Jackisch 2016) [68]

HERA

(Smith 2007) [69]

HERA

(Smith 2007) [69]

HERA

(Gianni 2011) [19]

HERA

(Goldhirsch 2013) [64]

HERA

(Goldhirsch 2013) [64]

HORG

(Mavroudis 2015) [70]

NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31

(Romond 2005) [18]

NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31

(Romond 2005) [18]

NCCTG N9831 andNSABP B-31

(Perez 2011) [71]

NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31

(Perez 2014) [51]

NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31

(Perez 2014) [51]

NeoALTTO

(de Azambuja 2014) [72]

NeoALTTO

(de Azambuja 2014) [72]

NOAH

(Gianni 2010) [73]

NOAH

(Gianni 2010) [73]

NOAH

(Gianni 2014) [20]

NOAH

(Gianni 2014) [20]

NSABP B-41

(Robidoux 2016) [74]

PHARE

(Pivot 2013) [75]

PHARE

(Pivot 2013) [75]

RCTs: HER2+ subgroups

BCIRG 001

(Mackey 2013) [76]

BCIRG 001

(Mackey 2013) [76]

Boccardo 2010 [77]

Boccardo 2010 [77]

Boccardo 2010 [77]

Boccardo 2010 [77]

BR9601 and NEAT

(Earl 2012) [78]

BR9601 and NEAT

(Earl 2012) [78]

BR9601 and NEAT

(Earl 2012) [78]

Colozza 2005 [79]

Colozza 2005 [79]

Colozza 2005 [79]

Colozza 2005 [79]

Colozza 2005 [79]

Del Mastro 2015 [80]

E1199

(Sparano 2008) [81]

E1199

(Sparano 2008) [81]

E1199

(Sparano 2008) [81]

E1199

(Sparano 2008) [81]

E1199

(Sparano 2008) [81]

E2198

(Schneider 2015) [82]

FinHer

(Joensuu 2009) [83]

FinHer

(Joensuu 2009) [83]

FinHer

(Joensuu 2009) [83]

FinHer

(Joensuu 2009) [83]

FinXX

(Joensuu 2014) [84]

FinXX

(Joensuu 2014) [84]

GeparTrio

(von Minckwitz 2013) [85]

GeparTrio

(von Minckwitz 2013) [85]

GONO-MIG-1

(Del Mastro 2005) [86]

GONO-MIG-1

(Del Mastro 2005) [86]

GONO-MIG-1

(Del Mastro 2005) [86]

GONO-MIG-1

(Del Mastro 2005) [86]

GONO-MIG-1

(Del Mastro 2005) [86]

Miles 1999 [87]

Miles 1999 [87]

Miles 1999 [87]

Miles 1999 [87]

Miles 1999 [87]

Rocca 2014 [88]

Rocca 2014 [88]

TEACH

(Goss 2013) [89]

TEACH

(Goss 2013) [89]

 

UNICANCER-PACS-01

(Coudert 2012) [90]

UNICANCER-PACS-01

(Coudert 2012) [90]

UNICANCER-PACS-01

(Coudert 2012) [90]

Observational

Bayraktar 2012 [91]

Bayraktar 2012 [91]

Bayraktar 2012 [91]

Gonzalez-Angulo 2015 [92]

Seferina 2015 [93]

HER2+ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, NMA network meta-analysis, OS overall survival, RCT randomized controlled trial

Table 2

Summary of study and patient characteristics from RCTs with overall survival results

Study (primary publication)

Treatments

Node name in network

Median follow-up (months)

N total

Median age (years)

Tumor Size > 2 cm (%)

Node + (%)

HR+ (%)

HER2+ (%)

RCTs with 100% HER2+ early breast cancer patients

ALTTO (Piccart-Gebhart 2016) [66]

Anthracycline and/or taxane → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

54

2097

51

49

51

57

100

Anthracycline and/or taxane → lapatinib (52 weeks)

AC-TL52 weeks

54

2100

51

51

52

57

100

Anthracycline and/or taxane → trastuzumab IV (12 weeks) → lapatinib (34 weeks)

AC-TL34 weeks-H12 weeks

54

2091

51

50

52

58

100

Anthracycline and/or taxane → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks) + lapatinib (52 weeks)

AC-TL52 weeks-H52 weeks

54

2093

51

50

51

57

100

BCIRG 006 (Slamon 2011) [44]

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → docetaxel

AC-T

65

1073

NR

59

71

54

100

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → docetaxel + trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

65

1074

NR

62

71

54

100

Docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

TCH52 weeks

65

1075

NR

59

72

54

100

FNCLCC-PACS 04 (Spielmann 2009) [67]

FEC or ED (epirubicin + docetaxel) → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

47

260

48

59·1

100

58

100

FEC or ED (epirubicin + docetaxel)

AC-T

47

268

49

50·6

100

61

100

HannaH (Jackisch 2016) [68]

Docetaxel → FEC + trastuzumab IV → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

40·6

297

50

NR

79·1

49·8

100

Docetaxel → FEC + trastuzumab SC → trastuzumab SC (52 weeks)

AC-THSC,52 weeks

40·3

294

50

NR

75·8

52·4

100

HERA (Goldhirsch 2013) [64]

Anthracycline or taxane → trastuzumab IV (104 weeks)

AC-TH104 weeks

96

1700

NR

49·5

56·5

51·4

100

Anthracycline or taxane → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

96

1702

49

48·4

56·4

50·9

100

Anthracycline or taxane

AC-T

96

1697

49

NR

NR

NR

100

HORG (Mavroudis 2015) [70]

FEC → docetaxel + trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

47

241

54

NR

74·7

64·7

100

FEC → docetaxel + trastuzumab IV (26 weeks)

AC-TH26 weeks

51

240

56

NR

83·3

68·8

100

NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31 (Perez 2014) [51]

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel

AC-T

99·6

2018

~ 50

59·2

92·6

54·8

100

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel + trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

100·8

2028

~ 50

61.8

93·4

54·7

100

NeoALTTO (de Azambuja 2014) [72]

Paclitaxel → FEC → lapatinib (52 weeks)

AC-TL52 weeks

45

154

50

100

> 16·2

51·9

100

Paclitaxel → FEC → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

45

149

49

100

> 15·4

50·3

100

Paclitaxel + → FEC → lapatinib (52 weeks) + trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TL52 weeks-H52 weeks

45

152

50

100

> 15·8

50·7

100

NOAH (Gianni 2014) [20]

Paclitaxel + doxorubicin → paclitaxel → CMF

AC-T

64·8

118

NR

NR

84

36

100

[Paclitaxel + doxorubicin → paclitaxel → CMF → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

64·8

117

NR

NR

86

36

100

NSABP B-41 (Robidoux 2013b) [94]

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

22·8

181

NR

100

51

67

100

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel + lapatinib (12 weeks) → trastuzumab IV (34 weeks)

AC → T-L12 weeks-H34 weeks

22·8

174

NR

100

52

58

100

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel + lapatinib (12 weeks) + trastuzumab IV → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC → T-L12 weeks-H52 weeks

22·8

174

NR

100

49

62

100

PHARE (Pivot 2013) [75]

Anthracycline + taxane + trastuzumab IV → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

42·5

1690

54

45.3

44·6

60·4

100

Anthracycline + taxane + trastuzumab IV → trastuzumab IV (26 weeks)

AC-TH26 weeks

42·5

1690

55

47·6

45.3

61·5

100

RCTs with subgroup data of HER2+ early breast cancer patients

BCIRG 001 (Mackey 2013) [76]

Docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide

AC-T

124

745

49

61

100

76·1

21

Fluorouracil + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide

AC

123

746

49

57

100

75·7

22

Boccardo 2010 [77]

Epirubicin → cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil

AC

102

122

53·0

47·5

100

79·5

31·1

Paclitaxel → epirubicin + vinorelbine

T → AV

102

122

54·5

64.8

100

79·5

28·7

BR9601 and NEAT (Earl 2012) [78]

Epirubicin → CMF

AC

88·8

1189

NR

56

72

≥59

21

Cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil

CMF

88·8

1202

NR

56

72

≥59

20

Colozza 2005 [79]

Cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil

CMF

96

133

NR

51

80

≥63

69

Epirubicin

E

96

133

NR

48

78

≥63

77

Del Mastro 2015 [80]

Epirubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel (q3w)

AC-T

84

545

51

48

100

77

23

FEC → paclitaxel (q3w)

AC-T

84

544

53

52

100

81

24

Epirubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel (q2w)

Dose dense

84

502

53

48

100

81

21

FEC → paclitaxel (q2w)

Dose dense

84

500

51

49

100

80

24

E1199 (Sparano 2015c) [95]

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel (weekly)

Dose dense

145·2

1232

51

63.8

87.8

70·2

19·2

Doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel (q3w)

AC-T

145·2

1253

51

60.7

87.8

71·0

20·6

E2198 (Schneider 2015) [82]

Paclitaxel + trastuzumab IV (10 weeks) → doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide

AC-TH9–10 weeks

77

115

49

NR

100

60

53

Paclitaxel + trastuzumab IV (10 weeks) → doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide + trastuzumab IV (52 weeks total)

AC-TH52 weeks

77

112

48

NR

100

63

FinHer (Joensuu 2009) [83]

Docetaxel → FEC

AC-T

62

58

49·9

70

78

≥44

100a

Docetaxel + trastuzumab IV (9 weeks) → FEC

AC-TH9–10 weeks

62

54

51·4

59

90

≥50

100a

Vinorelbine → FEC

AC-V

62

58

49·9

70

78

≥44

100a

Vinorelbine + trastuzumab IV (9 weeks) → FEC

AC-VH9 weeks

62

62

51·4

59

90

≥50

100a

FinXX (Joensuu 2014) [84]

Capecitabine + docetaxel → cyclophosphamide + epirubicin + capecitabine → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks); or docetaxel → FEC → trastuzumab IV (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

80·4

176

52·2

NR

84·6

60·2

100a

Capecitabine + docetaxel → cyclophosphamide + epirubicin + capecitabine; or docetaxel → FEC

AC-T

80·4

108

50·5

NR

81·4

51·9

100a

GeparTrio (von Minckwitz 2013) [85]

Docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide → vinorelbine + capecitabine (in non-responders)

AC-T → VX

62

987

NR

NR

54·7

65·6

29·1

Docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide

AC-T

62

1025

NR

NR

55·3

63·2

30·5

GONO-MIG-1 (Del Mastro 2005) [86]

FEC (q3w)

AC

80·4

53

54

NR

61·2

≥27·2

100a

FEC (q2w)

Dose dense

80·4

50

54

NR

61·2

≥27·2

100a

Miles 1999 [87]

Cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil

CMF

159·6

129

NR

78

100

≥77·5

30

No treatment

No Tx

159.6

145

NR

78

100

≥77·5

30

Rocca 2014 [88]

Epirubicin → CMF, or CMF → epirubicin

AC

69

545

53

NR

48·3

≥64·0

34·1

Cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil

CMF

69

160

51

NR

47·5

≥56·9

30·0

TEACH (Goss 2013) [89]

Lapatinib (52 weeks) + anthracycline/taxane

AC-TL52 weeks

47.4

1571

51

NR

54

59

78

Placebo (52 weeks) + anthracycline/taxane

AC-T

48·3

1576

52

NR

54

59

80

UNICANCER-PACS01 (Coudert 2012) [90]

FEC

AC

92·8

996

NR

57·8

100

78

9·4

FEC → docetaxel

AC-T

92·8

1003

NR

Non-randomized studies with 100% HER2+ early breast cancer patients

Bayraktar 2012 [91]

Paclitaxel + trastuzumab → FEC + trastuzumab (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

29

235

49

NR

81·5

≥53·8

100

Docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab (52 weeks)

TCH52 weeks

18

65

53

NR

80.0

≥55·6

100

Gonzalez-Angulo 2015 [92]

Adjuvant trastuzumab: paclitaxel + trastuzumab → FEC + trastuzumab (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

45

480

~ 50

NR

19·4

61·1

100

No adjuvant trastuzumab: paclitaxel + trastuzumab (26 weeks) → FEC

AC-TH26 weeks

45

109

~ 50

NR

15·6

53·2

100

Seferina 2015 [93]

Anthracycline/taxane-containing chemotherapy + trastuzumab (52 weeks)

AC-TH52 weeks

60

230

51

> 56

56·0

62

100

Endocrine therapy and radiotherapy, no chemotherapy

No chemo

60

246

65

NR

NR

NR

100

Data were extracted from the most recent full-text publications, when available

aPatient characteristics were available for the HER2+ subgroup population. Therefore, the percentage of HER2+ patients in the HER2+ subgroup is 100%, even though it is a non-randomized subset of the RCT

bPatient characteristics for NSABP B-41 were extracted from Robidoux 2013; [94] OS results were extracted from Robidoux 2016. [74]

cPatient characteristics for E1199 were extracted from Sparano 2015; [95] OS results were extracted from Sparano 2008. [81]

AC anthracycline (doxorubicin, epirubicin) + cyclophosphamide, AV anthracycline + vinorelbine, CMF cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + fluorouracil, Dose dense AC → T, or AC, either weekly or biweekly, E epirubicin, ED epirubicin + docetaxel, ER+ estrogen receptor-positive, FEC fluorouracil + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide, H Herceptin® intravenous (IV), HER2+ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, HR+ hormone receptor-positive, HSC Herceptin® subcutaneous (SC), IV intravenous, L lapatinib, No Chemo no chemotherapy (includes endocrine therapy and radiotherapy), No Tx no treatment, NR not reported, OS overall survival, PBO placebo, PgR+ progesterone receptor-positive, q2w once every 2 weeks, q3w once every 3 weeks, RCT randomized controlled trial, T taxane (docetaxel, paclitaxel), TCH docetaxel + carboplatin + Herceptin® IV, V vinorelbine, X capecitabine

Figure 2 shows the reference case cNMA evidence networks (interactive figure available online: https://goo.gl/ppkLrG). The final evidence network in 2016 includes 21 nodes connected by 28 RCTs (26 publications). Data from head-to-head trials were available for 31 pairwise comparisons in the network with single studies informing 24 comparisons. In total, 7341 patients (380 deaths) were included in the 2008 evidence network. By 2016, 33,029 patients (3929 deaths) were included. Based on results from the reference case cNMA RE model (Fig. 3), for the pairwise comparison of AC-TH52 weeks vs. AC-T, evidence in 2008 demonstrated an OS advantage for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.03–12.27). The corresponding probability of AC-TH52 weeks being better than AC-T in 2008 was 79% (standard deviation [SD] 41%). The certainty of this survival benefit strengthened over time, with an OS advantage for AC-TH52 weeks relative to AC-T in 2016 (HR 0.70, 0.62–0.82), and a p(better) value of 100% (SD 2%).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Cumulative NMA evidence networks for overall survival: reference case including RCTs with 100% HER2+ patients and HER2+ subgroups. AC anthracycline (doxorubicin, epirubicin) + cyclophosphamide, Dose dense AC → T, or AC, either weekly or biweekly, E epirubicin, H Herceptin® intravenous (IV), HSC Herceptin® subcutaneous (SC), L lapatinib, NMA network meta-analysis, No Tx no treatment, T taxane (docetaxel, paclitaxel), TCH docetaxel + carboplatin + Herceptin® IV, V vinorelbine, X capecitabine

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Cumulative NMA results for overall survival: reference case including RCTs with 100% HER2+ patients and HER2+ subgroups. a AC-TH52 weeks vs. AC-T, b TCH52 weeks vs. AC-T, c AC-TH52 weeks vs. TCH52 weeks, and d corresponding sample sizes and number of events. Boxes on the forest plots represent the hazard ratios, with 95% CrIs shown by the horizontal lines. The size of each box is based on the precision of each effect estimate, calculated as the inverse of the variance (precision = 1/SE2, where SE is a standard error). The x axis is presented in log-format. Probability better values are based on the random effects model. The dashed circle represents the maximum p(better) value that is possible: 100%. AC anthracycline (doxorubicin, epirubicin) + cyclophosphamide, CrI credible interval, H Herceptin® intravenous (IV), NA not available, OS overall survival, P(better) probability better, T taxane (docetaxel, paclitaxel), TCH docetaxel + carboplatin + Herceptin® IV

For the pairwise comparison of TCH52 weeks vs. AC-T, no evidence was available for 2008 or 2010. Initial published data in 2012 demonstrated no significant difference in OS for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.78, 95% CrI 0.20–3.07). Over time, the precision around the OS estimate improved, showing an OS advantage for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in 2016 (HR 0.77, 0.59–1.06). The probability of TCH52 weeks being better than AC-T in 2012 was 65% (SD 48%), and this increased to 96% (SD 21%) in 2016, due to the addition of studies to indirect comparisons.

For the pairwise comparison of AC-TH52 weeks vs. TCH52 weeks, both H/chemotherapy regimens showed a similar OS advantage, and the precision around these effect estimates improved over time. The effect estimate in 2016 showed a slight advantage for AC-TH52 weeks compared with TCH52 weeks, (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.66–1.22; p[better] 77%, SD 42%).

Model fit statistics were favorable for both the FE and RE models (Table 3). The FE model was preferred for earlier time points when the evidence networks were largely composed of single-study connections. The RE model was preferred for later time points when the network incorporated more multi-study connections, and the RE model heterogeneity was lowest in 2016. An assessment of inconsistency for the 2016 reference case analysis did not identify any concerns regarding inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence (Additional file 1).
Table 3

Model fit statistics

Year

Fixed effects

Random effects

Reference case: RCTs with 100% HER2+ patients and HER2+ subgroups

2008

DIC = 1.69

TotResDev = 2.99 vs. 4

DIC = 3.19

TotResDev = 3.74 vs. 4

Heterogeneity SD (95% CI) = 0.68 (0.01 to 4.55)

2010

DIC = 17

TotResDev = 10.63 vs. 10

DIC = 17.96

TotResDev = 9.66 vs. 10

Heterogeneity SD (95% CI) = 0.37 (0.02 to 2.41)

2012

DIC = 28.67

TotResDev = 19.63 vs. 16

DIC = 26.29

TotResDev = 14.64 vs. 16

Heterogeneity SD (95% CI) = 0.31 (0.05 to 1.16)

2014

DIC = 25.24

TotResDev = 25.67 vs. 25

DIC = 25.76

TotResDev = 23.27 vs. 25

Heterogeneity SD (95% CI) = 0.12 (0.01 to 0.43)

2016

DIC = 28.17

TotResDev = 33.94 vs. 34

DIC = 28.17

TotResDev = 32.07 vs. 34

Heterogeneity SD (95% CI) = 0.08 (0.01 to 0.27)

CI confidence interval, DIC deviance information criterion, HER2+ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, RCT randomized controlled trial, SD standard deviation, TotResDev total residual deviance

Cumulative NMA results from sensitivity analyses are provided in the Additional file 1. In sensitivity analysis #1 (only RCTs with 100% HER2+ patients), cNMA results showed an OS advantage for patients who received H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone, and the presence of anthracycline in the chemotherapy regimen did not significantly affect OS results. In sensitivity analysis #2 (naïve pooling of RCTs and NRS), cNMA results for the pairwise comparison of AC-TH52 weeks vs. AC-T aligned with the reference case results. For the pairwise comparison of TCH52 weeks vs. AC-T, initial evidence in 2012 demonstrated no significant difference in OS for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone, but by 2016, there was a shift to an OS advantage for patients who received TCH52 weeks, and the precision around the estimate improved. For the pairwise comparison of AC-TH52 weeks vs. TCH52 weeks, initial evidence in 2012 suggested an OS advantage for AC-TH52 weeks (although not significant). The precision around the effect estimates for this comparison improved over time, with a shift towards both H/chemotherapy regimens showing a similar OS advantage in 2016. Results from the reference case cNMA were also supported by a sensitivity analysis using whole survival curves.

We conducted subgroup analyses based on nodal status, HR status, and tumor size; a subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapies was not feasible because of insufficient information (Additional file 1). Due to many single-study connections in the subgroup analyses, we have only presented results from the FE model (Fig. 4). Our results show that the addition of H to chemotherapy provides an OS advantage for all analyzed subgroups. For the node-negative and small tumors (< 2 cm) subgroups, a slightly greater OS advantage was provided by H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy compared with H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy (2016 HR 0.79, 95% CrI 0.30–2.08; 2016 HR 0.68, 0.37–1.23, respectively), although there was reduced precision in the effect estimates compared with the node-positive (2016 HR 0.89, 0.63–1.25) and large tumors (≥ 2 cm) (2016 HR 0.86, 0.62–1.19) subgroups, respectively. HR− patients showed similar OS effects from either an anthracycline- or non-anthracycline-containing regimen with H (2016 HR 1.00, 0.69–1.47), whereas HR+ patients received greater OS benefit from H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy (2016 HR 0.67, 0.45–0.99).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Cumulative NMA overall survival results of subgroup analyses for the pairwise comparisons a AC-TH52 weeks vs. AC-T, b TCH52 weeks vs. AC-T, and c AC-TH52 weeks vs. TCH52 weeks. Boxes on the forest plots represent the hazard ratios, with 95% CrIs shown by the horizontal lines. The size of each box is based on the precision of each effect estimate. The x axis is presented in log format. AC anthracycline (doxorubicin, epirubicin) + cyclophosphamide, CrI credible interval, H Herceptin® intravenous (IV), NA not available, T taxane (docetaxel, paclitaxel), TCH docetaxel + carboplatin + Herceptin® IV

Discussion

Our cNMA evaluated the OS advantage conferred by the addition of H to standard chemotherapy in HER2+ EBC, compared the two most widely used H/chemotherapy regimens, and assessed how the evidence evolved over time. Initial evidence from the reference case analysis consistently demonstrated an OS advantage for patients who received standard of care treatment with 52 weeks of H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. Over time, the precision around the OS estimates improved and the certainty in the survival benefit strengthened. A comparison of H/anthracycline versus H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens showed that both regimens provided a similar OS advantage for HER2+ EBC patients, and the precision around the effect estimates for this comparison improved over time. Over 2.2 million HER2+ BC patients have been treated with H, including nearly 17,000 in the context of a clinical trial [39]. This, combined with data presented herein, clearly support originator trastuzumab as the established standard of care in the HER2+ EBC setting. In addition, a survival benefit was seen for all analyzed patient subgroups who received 52 weeks of H/chemotherapy.

Although H/chemotherapy demonstrated a survival benefit in all node-positive and node-negative subgroup analyses, the limited availability of published data for the node negative subgroup resulted in reduced precision of effect estimates. Node-positive disease is associated with higher risk of relapse [39], so more intensive regimens are commonly used to treat these patients [4, 40, 41], which may show a greater magnitude of effect. Few node-negative patients were included in the RCTs evaluated. Although the recent adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab (APT) trial showed that an adjuvant H/paclitaxel regimen is beneficial to node-negative patients, and it is less toxic than a traditional adjuvant regimen, this trial was not included in our analyses due to its single-arm design and lack of OS data [42].

Results from the HR subgroups showed that HR− patients received an OS benefit from H regardless of whether an anthracycline- or non-anthracycline-containing regimen was administered, whereas HR+ patients received OS benefit from an anthracycline-containing regimen with H. This difference may be due to coamplification of topoisomerase II alpha (TOP2A), which occurs in about a third of HER2+ cancers, and results in increased anthracycline sensitivity, longer progression-free survival, and improved OS [4345]. HR− patients may experience more relapse events and deaths in the first 5 to 8 years of follow-up compared with HR+ patients [4, 4649]. By 8 years of follow-up, the incidence of relapse is approximately equal in both subgroups. After 8 years, more relapse events were observed in the HR+ subgroup, which could be due to the overexpression of hormone receptors and activation of additional cell signaling pathways [4, 48, 49]. Increased anthracycline sensitivity in the HR+ subgroup could be contributing to the beneficial OS effect by targeting estrogen signaling pathways. HR+ patients are likely also receiving endocrine therapy, which may contribute to the lower relapse incidence observed at earlier stages in this subgroup.

The broader use of mammographic screening and earlier diagnosis of EBC has resulted in an increased incidence of small tumors [50]. Our cNMA subgroup results for patients with small tumors (< 2 cm) show a slightly greater OS advantage was provided by H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy compared with H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. Precision improvement was only seen with H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy, due to the addition of clinical evidence from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N9831 Intergroup trial and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-31 joint analysis [51]. Published data were only available for a tumor size threshold of 2 cm, but future work could investigate tumors of < 1 cm to confirm if H could also benefit these patients. The APT trial investigated patients with tumors ≤ 3 cm and suggested that an adjuvant H/paclitaxel regimen may be preferred for these patients; however, an H/anthracycline-containing comparator was not included [42]. Conversely, results from our cNMA suggest that patients with tumors < 2 cm may benefit more from H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy; however, only three trials were included in this analysis, so results should be interpreted with caution. In line with the APT trial, current guidelines recommend an adjuvant therapy of H/paclitaxel for small, HER2+, and node-negative tumors [7, 52]. In comparison, results from our cNMA subgroup analyses suggest that patients with small tumors (< 2 cm) and patients with node-negative tumors may benefit from an H/anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen compared with an H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen. This discrepancy shows the need for additional trials to investigate H/anthracycline-containing versus H/non-anthracycline-containing adjuvant therapies in this subpopulation.

The cNMA subgroup results provide evidence for the differential use of anthracycline- versus non-anthracycline-containing regimens with H that may preferentially benefit certain subgroups. Although the HR+ subgroup appeared to show greater relative improvements in OS with anthracycline-containing regimens, the HR− subgroup showed a similar benefit with either chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, HR− patients could avoid the cardiotoxic effects caused by anthracyclines by choosing a non-anthracycline-containing regimen. Similarly, node-negative patients could avoid anthracycline cardiotoxicity, as H/non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy appeared to be effective for this subgroup, although with reduced precision.

These subgroup analyses align with a recent meta-analysis that demonstrated an OS benefit for HER2+ EBC patients with small (≤ 2 cm), HR+ or HR− tumors who received H with their treatment regimens [53]. A potential limitation of our subgroup analyses is the heterogeneity caused by limited available data and small sample sizes. An imbalance in the weight of our subgroup results is due to an imbalance in the distribution of subgroups in studies. For instance, most RCTs in EBC were not designed solely for patients with node negative disease or small tumors [5]. Therefore, although our results support current clinical practice, subgroup results should be interpreted with caution [5]. Future studies should further assess these subgroups to help direct the neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment approach.

The presence of heterogeneity in the studies and the structure of the evidence networks limited our ability to adjust for various patient and study characteristics. However, we have accounted for heterogeneity and inconsistency using best practices that are consistent with those employed by HTA bodies such as NICE and CADTH [5457]. A limited number of high-quality NRS were identified, which restricted the methods used to combine evidence from RCTs and NRS. However, this lack of NRS is not expected to alter findings; NRS are often associated with more favorable estimates than RCTs, so our estimates are likely conservative. The lack of NRS also likely improves the validity of our findings, because inclusion of such studies in an NMA often introduces bias [25, 32, 33].

Despite these limitations, the SLR underpinning the cNMA is the most up-to-date and comprehensive review currently available for the treatment of women with HER2+ EBC [5862]. The SLR search spanned 26 years and identified over 17,800 unique records, demonstrating the vast amount of evidence available in this area of oncology. This study adheres to best practices for the conduct of NMA [54, 55] and to PRISMA reporting guidelines (Additional file 1) [54]. Thorough sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted, adding strength and validity to the findings. Specifically, the inclusion of RCTs and NRS in a sensitivity analysis provided additional evidence to strengthen the comparisons. The results from the reference case cNMA were also supported by a sensitivity analysis using whole survival curves rather than HRs.

The 11-year follow-up results from the HERA trial were published after the SLR end date (January 19, 2017) [63], and therefore were not identified by our search. Our current analyses include OS results from the 8-year median follow-up [64]. The 11-year OS results show a similar, yet slightly stronger advantage for treatment with 52 weeks of H compared with observation, which is in alignment with our findings. The OS results for HR+ and HR− subgroups at 11 years [63] also align with our subgroup results. Results from the phase III APHINITY trial were also recently published [65]. This trial investigates whether the addition of pertuzumab (Perjeta®) to adjuvant H/chemotherapy improves patient outcomes compared with H/chemotherapy alone. At a 45·4-month median follow-up, HER2+ EBC patients receiving dual HER2-targeted therapy showed a reduced risk of BC recurrence or death compared with patients receiving H/chemotherapy alone, and this effect was most detectable among higher-risk patients with node-positive or HR− disease [65]. It would be worthwhile to incorporate data from these recent trials into a future cNMA. The improved precision in OS estimates that we see for regimens including H may be due, in part, to the establishment of H as standard of care therapy for HER2+ EBC patients, thus reinforcing the probability of H/chemotherapy being better than chemotherapy alone. Advances in earlier diagnosis and better disease management are likely also contributing to improved efficacy.

Conclusions

The current SLR/cNMA represents the most comprehensive study to date of treatments for HER2+ EBC. It is uncommon to review the totality of a product’s clinical evidence at various time points and particularly over a prolonged timeframe. Initial evidence demonstrated an OS advantage for H/chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HER2+ EBC patients. The certainty of this survival benefit strengthened over time, as evidenced by the cNMA results. These findings demonstrate why H/chemotherapy is the established standard of care in HER2+ EBC, and support the decision to allow early patient access to H, as the benefits of treatment far outweigh the risk of waiting for more precise information to be published. Building on this legacy, H, as a subcutaneous injection, continues to provide strong benefits to these patients.

Abbreviations

BC: 

Breast cancer

cNMA: 

Cumulative network meta-analysis

EBC: 

Early breast cancer

H: 

Herceptin®

HER2+: 

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive.

MBC: 

Metastatic breast cancer

NRS: 

Non-randomized study

OS: 

Overall survival

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

SLR: 

Systematic literature review

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche Limited. All analyses were run independently by Cornerstone Research Group Inc., and industry collaborators did not impact the final results. The authors would like to acknowledge Aaron Situ for helping with statistical analyses and R programming, as well as Melissa Thompson, Dana Anger, Daniel Grima, and Joshua Gauci for providing constructive feedback.

Funding

This study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

FRW, MEC, MY, QW, CC, BS, and CB contributed to the study concept and design. BS performed the database searches. FRW, QW, and RD screened the studies and extracted the data. FRW and AV performed the statistical analyses. FRW, MEC, MY, CB, RD, AV, BH, and CC reviewed the results and interpreted the data. FRW prepared figures and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable; this analysis is based on published aggregate data and does not require ethical approval or informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MEC and MY are current and past employees of Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., respectively. FRW, QW, RD, AV, and CC are employees of Cornerstone Research Group Inc., who were paid contractors to Roche in the development of this manuscript. CC is also a shareholder in Cornerstone Research Group Inc. BH provides methodological advice for Cornerstone Research Group Inc. CB was a clinical advisor for the project. BS is a paid librarian contractor to Cornerstone. Cornerstone Research Group Inc. consults for various pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotech companies. This research was performed under a research contract between Cornerstone Research Group Inc. and Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and was funded by Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cornerstone Research Group Inc., Suite 204, 3228 South Service Road, Burlington, ON, L7N 3H8, Canada
(2)
Hoffmann-La Roche Limited, Mississauga, ON, Canada
(3)
St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
(4)
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
(5)
Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology, Ottawa, ON, Canada
(6)
Independent Information Specialist, Ottawa, ON, Canada

References

  1. Fabi A, Malaguti P, Vari S, Cognetti F. First-line therapy in HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer: is the mosaic fully completed or are we missing additional pieces? J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2016;35:104.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. HER2 testing for breast cancer. http://www.cancer.net/research-and-advocacy/asco-care-and-treatment-recommendations-patients/her2-testing-breast-cancer. Accessed July 17, 2017.
  3. Stages of breast cancer. http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/diagnosis/staging. Accessed July 17, 2017.
  4. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(suppl 5):v8–30.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisen A, Fletcher GG, Gandhi S, Mates M, Freedman OC, Dent SF, et al. Optimal systemic therapy for early breast cancer in women: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol. 2015;22:S67–81.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Denduluri N, Somerfield MR, Eisen A, Holloway JN, Hurria A, King TA, et al. Selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and adjuvant targeted therapy for HER2-positive breast cancers: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2416–27.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, PW E, Gnant M, Dubsky P, Loibl S, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ross JS, Slodkowska EA, Symmans WF, Pusztai L, Ravdin PM, Hortobagyi GN. The HER-2 receptor and breast cancer: ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine. Oncologist. 2009;14:320–68.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Siegel J. Herceptin FDA approval letter. Rockville MD; 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Canada H. Product information: Herceptin; 2017.Google Scholar
  11. European Medicines Agency. Herceptin (trastuzumab): authorization details. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000278/human_med_000818.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124 Accessed Sept 25, 2017.
  12. SwissMedic. Zugelassene Präparate / Médicaments autorisés. 2017.Google Scholar
  13. Genentech Inc. Herceptin USPI. 2016.Google Scholar
  14. Roche H-L. Product monograph: Herceptin; 2015.Google Scholar
  15. European Medicine Agency. Herceptin: summary of product characteristics. 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:783–92.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1659–72.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Suman VJ, Geyer CE Jr, Davidson NE, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1673–84.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gianni L, Dafni U, Gelber RD, Azambuja E, Muehlbauer S, Goldhirsch A, et al. Treatment with trastuzumab for 1 year after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a 4-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:236–44.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, Lluch A, Tjulandin S, Zambetti M, et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:640–7.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Slamon DJ, Eiermann W, Robert NJ, Giermek J, Martin M, Jasiowka M, et al. Ten year follow-up of BCIRG-006 comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC→T) with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab (AC→TH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in HER2+ early breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76:S5–04 (abstr).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell SD, Blackwell KL, Lawrence J, Pippen JE Jr, Roe MT, Wood F, et al. Independent adjudication of symptomatic heart failure with the use of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by trastuzumab adjuvant therapy: a combined review of cardiac data from the National Surgical Adjuvant breast and bowel project B-31 and the north central Cancer treatment group N9831 clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3416–21.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilson FR, Coombes M, Wylie Q, Yurchenko M, Brezden-Masley C, Hutton B, et al. Herceptin® (trastuzumab) in HER2-positive early breast cancer: protocol for a systematic review and cumulative network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2017;10:196.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9 W64.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Cameron C, Fireman B, Hutton B, Clifford T, Coyle D, Wells G, et al. Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: challenges and opportunities. Syst Rev. 2015;4:147.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:80–97.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Efthimiou O, Debray TP, van Valkenhoef G, Trelle S, Panayidou K, Moons KG, et al. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7:236–63.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:607–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:597–606.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Genentech Inc. Herceptin: prescribing information. 2016.Google Scholar
  31. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker AM. Confounding by indication. Epidemiology. 1996;7:335–6.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002;359:248–52.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Verde PE, Ohmann C. Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in clinical research: a review of methods and applications. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6:45–62.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmitz S, Adamsb R, Walsha C. Incorporating data from various trial designs into a mixed treatment comparison model. Stat Med. 2013;32:2935–49.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. McCarron CE, Pullenayegum EM, Thabane L, Goeree R, Tarride JE. Bayesian hierarchical models combining different study types and adjusting for covariate imbalances: a simulation study to assess model performance. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25635.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. McCarron CE, Pullenayegum EM, Thabane L, Goeree R, Tarride JE. The importance of adjusting for potential confounders in Bayesian hierarchical models synthesising evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies: an application comparing treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:64.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:641–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Strasser-Weippl K, Horick N, Smith IE, O'Shaughnessy J, Ejlertsen B, Boyle F, et al. Long-term hazard of recurrence in HER2+ breast cancer patients untreated with anti-HER2 therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:56.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines for patients: breast cancer early-stage. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed Feb 21, 2017.
  41. Zurawska U, Baribeau DA, Giilck S, Victor C, Gandhi S, Florescu A, et al. Outcomes of HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer in the trastuzumab era: a population-based study of Canadian patients. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:e539–45.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Tolaney SM, Barry WT, Dang CT, Yardley DA, Moy B, Marcom PK, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:134–41.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Coon JS, Marcus E, Gupta-Burt S, Seelig S, Jacobson K, Chen S, et al. Amplification and overexpression of topoisomerase II alpha predict response to anthracycline-based therapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:p1061–7.Google Scholar
  44. Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, Pienkowski T, Martin M, Press M, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1273–83.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Press MF, Sauter G, Buyse M, Bernstein L, Guzman R, Santiago A, et al. Alteration of topoisomerase II-alpha gene in human breast cancer: association with responsiveness to anthracycline-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:859–67.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Vaz-Luis I, Ottesen RA, Hughes ME, Marcom PK, Moy B, Rugo HS, et al. Impact of hormone receptor status on patterns of recurrence and clinical outcomes among patients with human epidermal growth factor-2-positive breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: a prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R129.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Gomez HL, Castaneda CA, Vigil CE, Vidaurre T, Velarde RG, Cruz WR, et al. Prognostic effect of hormone receptor status in early HER2 positive breast cancer patients. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2010;3:109–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Romond EH, Suman VJ, Jeong JH, Sledge JGW, Geyer JCE, Martino S, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: final planned joint analysis of overall survival (OS) from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 2012:S5– (abstr).Google Scholar
  49. Park S, Koo JS, Kim MS, Park HS, Lee JS, Lee JS, et al. Characteristics and outcomes according to molecular subtypes of breast cancer as classified by a panel of four biomarkers using immunohistochemistry. Breast. 2012;21:50–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Benson JR, Jatoi I, Keisch M, Esteva FJ, Makris A, Jordan VC. Early breast cancer. Lancet. 2009;373:1463–79.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, Jeong JH, Sledge G, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3744–52.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Gnant M, Harbeck N, Thomssen C. St. Gallen/Vienna 2017: a brief summary of the consensus discussion about escalation and de-escalation of primary breast cancer treatment. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12:102–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. O'Sullivan CC, Bradbury I, Campbell C, Spielmann M, Perez EA, Joensuu H, et al. Efficacy of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer and tumors </= 2 cm: a meta-analysis of the randomized trastuzumab trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2600–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17:157–73.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. McIntosh B, Cameron C, Singh SR, Yu C, Ahuja T, Welton NJ, et al. Second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis. Open Med. 2011;5:e35–48.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Cameron C, Coyle D, Richter T, Kelly S, Gauthier K, Steiner S, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing antithrombotic agents for the prevention of stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004301.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Nagayama A, Hayashida T, Jinno H, Takahashi M, Seki T, Matsumoto A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: a network meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu Q, Zhu Z, Liu Y, Zhang J, Li K. Efficacy and safety of HER2-targeted agents for breast cancer with HER2-overexpression: a network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0127404.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Yin W, Jiang Y, Shen Z, Shao Z, Lu J. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21030.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Dahabreh IJ, Linardou H, Siannis F, Fountzilas G, Murray S. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncologist. 2008;13:620–30.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Viani GA, Afonso SL, Stefano EJ, De Fendi LI, Soares FV. Adjuvant trastuzumab in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published randomized trials. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:153.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Cameron D, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Gelber RD, Procter M, Goldhirsch A, de Azambuja E, et al. 11 years' follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of the HERceptin adjuvant (HERA) trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1195–205.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, de Azambuja E, Procter M, Suter TM, et al. 2 years versus 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer (HERA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1021–8.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  65. von Minckwitz G, Procter M, de Azambuja E, Zardavas D, Benyunes M, Viale G, et al. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:122–31.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Piccart-Gebhart M, Holmes E, Baselga J, de AE, Dueck AC, Viale G, et al. Adjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimization trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1034–42.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Spielmann M, Roche H, Delozier T, Canon JL, Romieu G, Bourgeois H, et al. Trastuzumab for patients with axillary-node-positive breast cancer: results of the FNCLCC-PACS 04 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6129–34.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Jackisch C, Hegg R, Stroyakovskiy D, Ahn JS, Melichar B, Chen SC, et al. HannaH phase III randomised study: association of total pathological complete response with event-free survival in HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant trastuzumab after 2 years of treatment-free follow-up. Eur J Cancer. 2016;62:62–75.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith I, Procter M, Gelber RD, Guillaume S, Feyereislova A, Dowsett M, et al. 2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;369:29–36.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Mavroudis D, Saloustros E, Malamos N, Kakolyris S, Boukovinas I, Papakotoulas P, et al. Six versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab in combination with dose-dense chemotherapy for women with HER2-positive breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study by the Hellenic oncology research group (HORG). Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1333–40.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, Jeong JH, Davidson NE, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Four-year follow-up of trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: joint analysis of data from NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3366–73.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. de Azambuja E, Holmes AP, Piccart-Gebhart M, Holmes E, Di CS, Swaby RF, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): survival outcomes of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial and their association with pathological complete response. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1137–46.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, Manikhas A, Lluch A, Tjulandin S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet. 2010;375:377–84.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Azar CA, Atkins JN, et al. Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2+ operable breast cancer: 5-year outcomes of NSABP protocol B-41. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:501 (abstr).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Pivot X, Romieu G, Debled M, Pierga JY, Kerbrat P, Bachelot T, et al. 6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHARE): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:741–8.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Mackey JR, Martin M, Pienkowski T, Rolski J, Guastalla JP, Sami A, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised BCIRG 001 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:72–80.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Boccardo F, Amadori D, Guglielmini P, Sismondi P, Farris A, Agostara B, et al. Epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil versus paclitaxel followed by epirubicin and vinorelbine in patients with high-risk operable breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;78:274–81.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Vallier AL, Bowden SJ, Jordan SD, et al. Adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) vs CMF in early breast cancer: results with over 7 years median follow-up from the randomised phase III NEAT/BR9601 trials. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1257–67.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Colozza M, Sidoni A, Mosconi AM, Cavaliere A, Bisagni G, Gori S, et al. HER2 overexpression as a predictive marker in a randomized trial comparing adjuvant cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil with epirubicin in patients with stage I/II breast cancer: long-term results. Clin Breast Cancer. 2005;6:253–9.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Del Mastro L, De PS, Bruzzi P, De LM, Boni C, Cavazzini G, et al. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 x 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1863–72.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, Jones V, Perez EA, Saphner T, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1663–71.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Schneider BP, O'Neill A, Shen F, Sledge GW, Thor AD, Kahanic SP, et al. Pilot trial of paclitaxel-trastuzumab adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (E2198). Br J Cancer. 2015;113:1651–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, Alanko T, Kokko R, Asola R, et al. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide with either docetaxel or vinorelbine, with or without trastuzumab, as adjuvant treatments of breast cancer: final results of the FinHer trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5685–92.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Kokko R, et al. Outcome of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with or without adjuvant trastuzumab in the Finland Capecitabine trial (FinXX). Acta Oncol. 2014;53:186–94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Denkert C, Eidtmann H, Eiermann W, et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3623–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Del Mastro L, Bruzzi P, Nicolo G, Cavazzini G, Contu A, D'Amico M, et al. HER2 expression and efficacy of dose-dense anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2005;93:7–14.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Miles DW, Harris WH, Gillett CE, Smith P, Barnes DM. Effect of c-erbB(2) and estrogen receptor status on survival of women with primary breast cancer treated with adjuvant cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil. Int J Cancer. 1999;84:354–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Rocca A, Bravaccini S, Scarpi E, Mangia A, Petroni S, Puccetti M, et al. Benefit from anthracyclines in relation to biological profiles in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144:307–18.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Goss PE, Smith IE, O'Shaughnessy J, Ejlertsen B, Kaufmann M, Boyle F, et al. Adjuvant lapatinib for women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:88–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Coudert B, Asselain B, Campone M, Spielmann M, Machiels JP, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Extended benefit from sequential administration of docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide regimen for node-positive breast cancer: the 8-year follow-up results of the UNICANCER-PACS01 trial. Oncologist. 2012;17:900–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Bayraktar S, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, Buzdar AU, Valero V, Melhem-Bertrandt A, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab concurrent with anthracycline- and nonanthracycline-based regimens for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:2385–93.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Parinyanitikul N, Lei X, Mittendorf EA, Zhang H, Valero V, et al. Effect of adjuvant trastuzumab among patients treated with anti-HER2-based neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:630–5.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Seferina SC, Lobbezoo DJ, de BM, Dercksen MW, van den Berkmortel F, van Kampen RJ, et al. Real-life use and effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer patients: a study of the Southeast Netherlands breast Cancer consortium. Oncologist. 2015;20:856–63.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, Geyer CE Jr, Azar CA, Atkins JN, et al. Lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive operable breast cancer (NSABP protocol B-41): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1183–92.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S, Ligibel JA, Perez EA, Saphner T, et al. Long-term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2353–60.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement