| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | 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) | 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: |
|
