Table 3.
Pairwise comparisons of 8 interventions for PFS and OS (HR, 95% CrI).
| mTORi + AI | 1.00 (0.61, 1.63) | 0.99 (0.57, 1.72) | 1.25 (0.57, 2.80) | 0.86 (0.49, 1.52) | 0.58 (0.25, 1.33) | 0.89 (0.69, 1.17) | 0.76 (0.44, 1.31) |
| 0.91 (0.69, 1.22) |
CDK4/6i + AI | 1.00 (0.78, 1.28) |
1.26 (0.68, 2.44) |
0.87 (0.65, 1.16) |
0.58 (0.30, 1.14) |
0.90 (0.60, 1.35) |
0.76 (0.61, 0.96) |
| 0.89 (0.62, 1.32) |
0.98 (0.77, 1.26) |
CDK4/6i + Fulvestrant | 1.27 (0.70, 2.39) |
0.87 (0.69, 1.10) |
0.58 (0.30, 1.13) |
0.90 (0.56, 1.46) |
0.76 (0.66, 0.89) |
| 0.83 (0.46, 1.50) |
0.91 (0.54, 1.53) |
0.93 (0.57, 1.48) |
AKTi + Fulvestrant |
0.69 (0.36, 1.26) |
0.46 (0.19, 1.09) |
0.71 (0.33, 1.50) |
0.60 (0.33, 1.08) |
|
0.66
(0.44, 0.98) |
0.72
(0.54, 0.95) |
0.74
(0.60, 0.89) |
0.79 (0.50, 1.27) |
PI3Ki + Fulvestrant |
0.67 (0.35, 1.31) |
1.04 (0.63, 1.72) |
0.88 (0.74, 1.05) |
| 0.65 (0.42, 1.01) |
0.71
(0.51, 0.99) |
0.73
(0.56, 0.94) |
0.78 (0.47, 1.30) |
0.99 (0.76, 1.29) |
mTORi + Fulvestrant |
1.55 (0.71, 3.36) |
1.32 (0.69, 2.48) |
|
0.51
(0.41, 0.66) |
0.56
(0.48, 0.66) |
0.58
(0.43, 0.77) |
0.62 (0.36, 1.06) |
0.78 (0.57, 1.08) |
0.79 (0.55, 1.15) |
AI | 0.85 (0.53, 1.35) |
|
0.47
(0.32, 0.69) |
0.52
(0.40, 0.66) |
0.53
(0.46, 0.61) |
0.57
(0.36, 0.90) |
0.72
(0.63, 0.83) |
0.73
(0.58, 0.91) |
0.92 (0.69, 1.22) |
Fulvestrant |
Contrast of PFS (on the lower triangle) and OS (on the upper triangle). The HRs lower than 1 revealed the favorable tendency of column-defining regimens for PFS and row-defining regimens for OS. Significant differences were bolded. HR, hazard ratio; CrI, credible interval; CDK4/6i, CDK4/6 inhibitors; PI3Ki, PI3K inhibitors; AKTi, AKT inhibitors; mTORi, mTOR inhibitors; AI, aromatase inhibitors.