| pathology | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
|---|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | versus combination No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Goss, 2007 | letrozole vs atamestane + toremifene | | | overall survival (reported) 0.98 [0.60; 1.60] Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.97 [0.88; 1.06] Objective response (assessable) 0.85 [0.72; 1.01] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 1.00 [0.67; 1.49] Objective response (randomised) 0.85 [0.70; 1.03] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.96 [0.85; 1.09] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Goss, 2007 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced receptor-positive breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | versus different AI No demonstrated result for efficacy letrozole inferior to anastrozole in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Rose, 2003 letrozole inferior to anastrozole in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Rose, 2003 letrozole inferior to fadrozole in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Tominaga, 2003 letrozole inferior to fadrozole in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Tominaga, 2003 | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Gershanovich, 1998 | letrozole vs aminoglutethimide | | | overall survival (reported) 0.64 [0.31; 1.33] Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.83 [0.62; 1.11] Objective response (assessable) 0.65 [0.40; 1.06] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.72 [0.36; 1.43] Objective response (randomised) 0.64 [0.39; 1.04] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.81 [0.60; 1.09] | | Rose, 2003 | letrozole vs anastrozole | | Objective response (assessable) 0.64 [0.45; 0.90] Objective response (randomised) 0.65 [0.45; 0.92] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.84 [0.66; 1.08] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.85 [0.66; 1.10] | | Tominaga, 2003 | letrozole vs fadrozole | | Objective response (assessable) 0.42 [0.21; 0.81] Objective response (randomised) 0.42 [0.22; 0.82] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.69 [0.48; 1.01] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.70 [0.48; 1.02] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Gershanovich, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, previously treated with anti-estrogens | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Rose, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | second-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Tominaga, 2003 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Clinical benefit (assessable) in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (assessable) in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of diarrhoea in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Objective response (randomised) in Mourisden, 2001 letrozole inferior to tamoxifen in terms of Clinical benefit (randomised) in Mourisden, 2001 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Mourisden, 2001 | letrozole vs tamoxifen | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.78 [0.67; 0.90] Objective response (assessable) 0.67 [0.53; 0.84] diarrhoea 9.00 [1.14; 70.75] Objective response (randomised) 0.67 [0.53; 0.84] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.78 [0.67; 0.91] | nausea 1.01 [0.76; 1.35] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.70 [0.40; 1.22] arthralgia 1.06 [0.78; 1.44] hot flushes 1.14 [0.85; 1.51] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Mourisden, 2001 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Buzdar, 2001 | letrozole vs megestrol acetate | vaginal bleeding 0.08 [0.01; 0.64] | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.90 [0.64; 1.25] Objective response (assessable) 0.95 [0.60; 1.49] diarrhoea 1.01 [0.30; 3.44] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.92 [0.47; 1.82] nausea 1.12 [0.62; 2.01] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.99 [0.51; 1.91] Objective response (randomised) 1.04 [0.66; 1.63] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.88 [0.62; 1.23] hot flushes 0.97 [0.57; 1.64] | | Dombernowsky, 1998 | letrozole vs megestrol acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.92 [0.69; 1.22] Objective response (assessable) 0.70 [0.46; 1.05] vomiting 1.41 [0.64; 3.14] diarrhoea 2.39 [0.85; 6.74] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.82 [0.40; 1.70] nausea 1.21 [0.65; 2.26] progression-free survival (reported or calculated) 0.98 [0.49; 1.95] Objective response (randomised) 0.70 [0.46; 1.06] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.92 [0.69; 1.23] arthralgia 1.67 [0.90; 3.09] rash 1.81 [0.67; 4.88] hot flushes 1.55 [0.60; 3.99] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Buzdar, 2001 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Dombernowsky, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with locally advanced, locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
