ABSTRACT
Aim: There is limited data available regarding the comparison of Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) vs. chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Materials & methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety profile of SG vs. chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) clinical trials. Results: The pooled odds ratio for outcomes such as grade 3-4 and all grade neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia and other non-hematological adverse events showed a higher risk for patients receiving SG. No statistically significant differences were reported in terms of grade 3-4 fatigue, all grade nausea, febrile neutropenia and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Conclusion: Our data, coupled with a statistically and clinically meaningful survival benefit, support the use of SG for mBC.
[Box: see text].
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A timely diagnosis is essential for improving breast cancer patients' survival and designing targeted therapeutic plans. For this purpose, the screening timing, as well as the related waiting lists, are decisive. Nonetheless, even in economically advanced countries, breast cancer radiology centres fail in providing effective screening programs. Actually, a careful hospital governance should encourage waiting lists reduction programs, not only for improving patients care, but also for minimizing costs associated with the treatment of advanced cancers. Thus, in this work, we proposed a model to evaluate several scenarios for an optimal distribution of the resources invested in a Department of Breast Radiodiagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Particularly, we performed a cost-benefit analysis as a technology assessment method to estimate both costs and health effects of the screening program, to maximise both benefits related to the quality of care and resources employed by the Department of Breast Radiodiagnosis of Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari in 2019. Specifically, we determined the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) for estimating health outcomes, in terms of usefulness of two hypothetical screening strategies with respect to the current one. While the first hypothetical strategy adds one team made up of a doctor, a technician and a nurse, along with an ultrasound and a mammograph, the second one adds two afternoon teams. RESULTS: This study showed that the most cost-effective incremental ratio could be achieved by reducing current waiting lists from 32 to 16 months. Finally, our analysis revealed that this strategy would also allow to include more people in the screening programs (60,000 patients in 3 years).
