Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
PLOS One · September 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background HER2-positive advanced breast cancer remains challenging after trastuzumab-based therapy because available regimens differ in survival, response, and toxicity. We compared therapies used in second-line and later settings. Methods This PRISMA-NMA-compliant review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251244047). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched through July 24, 2026. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials after trastuzumab-based therapy were eligible. Bayesian network meta-analysis summarized PFS and OS as hazard ratios and confirmed ORR and safety outcomes as odds ratios. Random-effects models were used where heterogeneity was estimable; fixed-effect Bayesian models were used for the sparse SAE and ILD/pneumonitis networks. DoR was analyzed exploratorily using a fixed-effect Bayesian normal model after prespecified conversion of arm-level summary statistics; TTP was not quantitatively synthesized when the required summary measures were unavailable or clinically non-equivalent. Results Sixteen reports representing seven independent randomized trial families and 3,339 unique randomized participants were included. Relative to T-DXd, T-DM1 had less favorable PFS (HR 3.30, 95% CrI 2.06–5.28) and OS (HR 1.52, 1.19–2.01). However, T-DXd was not represented in the second-line-only OS network or the Asia-dominant PFS/OS networks; therefore, its survival ranking reflects evidence primarily from mixed-line, non-Asia-dominant trials. T-DXd produced higher confirmed ORR than Lap-Cap (OR 7.43, 3.80–13.16), PTN-Cap (OR 3.35, 1.24–8.19), and T-DM1 (OR 6.31, 3.98–10.32). DoR showed no clear between-treatment difference in the EMILIA/NALA network, and TTP could not be quantitatively synthesized. Any-grade AE estimates did not indicate a safety advantage for T-DXd. SAE comparisons were also inconclusive: T-DM1 vs Lap-Cap OR 0.90 (0.67–1.21) and T-DXd vs T-DM1 OR 1.30 (0.87–1.93). T-DXd had higher ILD/pneumonitis odds than T-DM1 (OR 5.55, 2.79–12.16); LVD differences were unclear. Conclusion Within the connected overall networks, T-DXd showed a favorable survival profile and the highest confirmed ORR, although its survival ranking was not estimable in the second-line-only OS or Asia-dominant survival networks. Its increased ILD/pneumonitis risk relative to T-DM1 is clinically important. Indirect survival comparisons and sparse safety networks require cautious interpretation.