IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0358540.html

Efficacy and safety of T-DXd versus Other HER2-targeted therapies in second-line and later settings for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Xiao
  • Jing Fu
  • Juan Li
  • Gang Hu

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Xiao & Jing Fu & Juan Li & Gang Hu, 2026. "Efficacy and safety of T-DXd versus Other HER2-targeted therapies in second-line and later settings for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(9), pages 1-20, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0358540
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0358540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0358540
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0358540&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0358540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0358540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.