Data extraction Hazard Ratios (HR) for PFS

and OS and the number of events for secondary end-points were extracted; the last trial’s available update was considered as the original source. All data were reviewed and separately computed by four investigators (F.Cu., E.B., I.S., and D.G.). Data synthesis HRs were extracted from each single trial for primary end-points GS-9973 purchase [19, 20], and the log of relative risk ratio (RR) was estimated for secondary endpoints [21]; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were derived [22]. A random-effect model according to DerSimonian-Laird method was preferred to the fixed, given the known clinical heterogeneity of trials; a Q-statistic heterogeneity test was used. Absolute benefits for MK0683 ic50 each outcome were calculated (i.e. absolute benefit = exp HR or RR × log[control survival] – control survival [23]; modified by Parmar and Machin [24]). The number of patients needed to treat (or to harm one in

case of toxicity) for one single beneficial patient was determined (NNT or NNH: 1/[(Absolute Benefit)/100]) [25]. Results were depicted in all figures as conventional meta-analysis forest plots. In order to find possible correlations between outcome effect and negative prognostic factors (selected among trials’ reported factors: > 3 sites, no adjuvant CT, visceral site, hormonal receptors negative (RN), prior taxanes, T or anthracyclines, A) a meta-regression approach was adopted (i.e. regression of the selected predictor on the Log HR/RR of the corresponding outcome). Calculations were accomplished using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software, version v. 2.0 (CMA, Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Results Selected

trials Five trials (3,841 patients) were identified (Figure 1) [13, 14, 16, 26, 27], all included in the meta-analysis, and evaluable for PFS (primary outcome). The patients’ sample for each trial ranged from 462 to 736 patients cAMP (Table 1). One trial was conducted with a double comparison [16]. Trials characteristics are listed in Table 1; 2 RCTs evaluated the addition of Bevacizumab as second line treatment [26, 27], and one of these included patients who received 2 or more regimens of chemotherapy for metastatic disease [27]. One trial (462 patients) did not report survival data [27], so 4 RCTs were evaluable for OS (3,379 patients). With regard to secondary outcomes, all RCTs were evaluable for ORR, HTN, Bleeding, GSK1904529A Proteinuria and Thrombosis; 4 RCTs (3,379 patients) were evaluable for Neurotoxicity, Febrile Neutropenia, Gastro-intestinal perforation [13, 14, 16, 26].