Figure 1 Outline of the search – Flow diagram. RCTs: randomized clinical trials; pts: patients; PFS: progression free survival; OS: overall
survival; ORR: Elafibranor overall response rate; HTN: hypertension; neuro: neurotixicity; FN: febrile neutropenia; GI: gastro-intestinal. Table 1 Trials’ Characteristics Authors Pts Prior chemotherapy lines for metastatic disease Arms > 3 sites No adjuvant Chemo Visceral site Hormonal Receptors Negative (RN) Prior taxanes (T) Prior Anthra (A) Miller et al 462 Mostly 1-2 Cap (2,500 mg/m2/day, days 1-14) Cap (2,500 mg/m2/day, days 1-14) + Beva (15 mg/kg) 49.7% NR 78.7% NR 100% 100% Gray et al 722 0 wPac (90 mg/m2 day 1, 8 and 15)wPac (90 mg/m2 day 1, 8 and 15)+ Beva (10 mg/kg) Selleckchem PF-04929113 45.7% 34.2% 62.2% 36.7% 14.9% 37.2% Miles et al 736 0 Doc (100 mg/m2) Doc (100 mg/m2)+ Beva 7.5 (7.5 mg/kg) Doc (100 mg/m2)+ Beva 15 (15 mg/kg) 35.0% 33.4% 54.8% 54.9% NR 17.1% 17.1% 14.9% 16.2% 53.7% 53.5% Dieras et al 622 615 0 A/T A/T + Beva (15 mg/kg) Cap (2,000 mg/m2/day, days 1-14) Cap (2,000 mg/m2/day, days 1-14) + Beva (15 mg/kg) 54.5% 27.8% 45.2% 43.9% 70.4% 68.8% 24.0% 23.6% 15.0% 39.5% 29.9% 62.9%
Bruwski et al 684 1 Chemo Chemo + Beva 45.3% NR 73.1% 27.7% NR NR Pt: patients; RN: receptor negative; T: taxanes (3-weekly Docetaxel or protein-bound paclitaxel); Anthra (A): anthracyclines (various regimens: AC, EC, MK-4827 molecular weight FAC, FEC); Cap: capecitabine; Beva: Bevacizumab; NR: not reported; wPac: weekly paclitaxel; Doc: docetaxel; Chemo: various chemotherapies. Combined Analysis With regard to the primary outcomes, the addition of Bevacizumab to chemotherapy increased PFS in patients untreated for advanced disease (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56, 0.81, p = 0.0001), with an absolute benefit of 8.4%, corresponding to 12 patients to be treated for one to benefit, although with significant heterogeneity
(p = 0.0001) (Table 2) (Figure 2) . A significant interaction according to treatment lines for PFS was found (p = 0.027), given the non significant difference between the 2 arms in second line setting (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69, 1.07, p = 0.19). No significant differences were found in OS in favor of Bevacizumab regardless of the treatment ever lines (interaction test p = 0.69) (Table 2). Overall response were significantly higher in the Bevacizumab arm, regardless of treatment lines (interaction test p = 0.48), with an absolute difference of 11.5% and 8.4% for first and second line, respectively, corresponding to 8-9 and 12 patients to be treated for one to benefit (Table 2). Significant adverse events for patients receiving Bevacizumab are listed in table 3. The highest significant difference against the administration of Bevacizumab was HTN, corresponding to 22 patients to be treated for one experiencing the adverse events, although with significant heterogeneity (p = 0.0001).