Sacituzumab Govitecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Single-Arm Efficacy and Integration of Randomized and Real-World Evidence
| dc.contributor.author | Pérez Bermejo, Marcelino | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mazon-Albalate, Marcelo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Murillo Llorente, María Teresa | |
| dc.contributor.author | Perez-Murillo, Javier | |
| dc.contributor.author | Legidos García, María Ester | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tomás Aguirre, Francisco | |
| dc.contributor.author | Palau Ferré, Alma María | |
| dc.contributor.author | Martínez Peris, Miriam | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ventura González, Ignacio | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-10-14T09:55:52Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-10-14T09:55:52Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026-06-20 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2026-10-14T06:53:35Z | |
| dc.description | Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.P.-B. and M.M.-A.; methodology, M.P.-B., M.T.M.-L., J.P.-M. and I.V.; software, M.P.-B. and J.P.-M.; validation, M.P.-B., M.M.-A., M.T.M.-L., J.P.-M., M.E.L.- G., F.T.-A., A.M.P.-F., M.M.-P. and I.V.; formal analysis, M.P.-B. and M.T.M.-L.; investigation, M.P.-B., M.M.-A., M.T.M.-L., J.P.-M., M.E.L.-G., F.T.-A., A.M.P.-F., M.M.-P. and I.V.; data curation, M.P.-B., M.M.-A. and I.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.-B., M.M.-A., M.T.M.-L., J.P.-M., M.E.L.-G., F.T.-A., A.M.P.-F., M.M.-P. and I.V.; writing—review and editing, M.P.-B., M.M.-A., M.T.M.-L., J.P.-M., M.E.L.-G., F.T.-A., A.M.P.-F., M.M.-P. and I.V.; supervision, M.P.-B. and M.T.M.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. | en |
| dc.description.abstract | Background/Objectives: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) carries a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an anti-Trop-2 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown activity in this setting, but a quantitative synthesis integrating randomized and real-world evidence-particularly in underrepresented subgroups-was lacking. We aimed to summarize the comparative benefit of SG, which derives from a single randomized trial, and to assess whether trial-level efficacy is consistent with the activity observed in routine practice. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science (January 2017-April 2026) for trials and observational cohorts of SG monotherapy in mTNBC. Comparative effects were taken from randomized data; single-arm efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], clinical benefit rate [CBR], median progression-free [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) was pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. The review was registered in the Open Science Framework. Results: Nine studies (1242 patients; 980 SG-treated) were included: one randomized trial (ASCENT), two single-arm trials, and six real-world cohorts. In ASCENT, SG improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.63) and OS (HR 0.51, 0.42-0.64). Pooled ORR was 31.1% (28.0-34.4), and CBR was 42.2% (37.7-46.8), with the median PFS being 4.8 months (4.4-5.3) and OS being 11.0 months (9.3-13.0); trial-derived and real-world estimates were concordant. The benefit persisted in older patients (HR 0.25) and Black women (HR 0.44) but not in those with brain metastases (HR 0.68, 0.38-1.23). Conclusions: SG shows clinically meaningful activity in mTNBC that is broadly consistent between controlled trials and routine practice. Comparative superiority over chemotherapy rests on a single randomized trial (ASCENT); the pooled single-arm estimates describe activity and its consistency rather than a comparative effect. | en |
| dc.description.discipline | Medicina | |
| dc.description.sponsorship | The authors thank the Catholic University of Valencia San Vicente Mártir for its contribution and help with the payment of the Open Access publication fee. | en |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/12/2005 | |
| dc.identifier.essn | 2072-6694 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12466/7776 | |
| dc.issue.number | 12 | |
| dc.journal.title | Cancers | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.page.final | 19 | |
| dc.page.initial | 1 | |
| dc.relation | Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers18122005/s1. Supplementary Methods: Extended description of the protocol, registration, search, screening, data-extraction, de-duplication, and statistical procedures; Table S1: Completed PRISMA 2020 checklist; Table S2: Full database-specific search strategies for PubMed/MEDLINE and the Web of Science Core Collection, with line-by-line record counts; Table S3: Risk-of-bias assessment of the ASCENT randomized controlled trial (Cochrane RoB 2); Table S4: Risk-of-bias assessment of the non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I); Table S5: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) pooled by study design (clinical trials vs. real-world cohorts), with the test for differences between subgroups; Table S6: GRADE Summary of Findings for the efficacy outcomes of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; Table S7: Mapping of overlapping reports to unique studies (de-duplication; collapsing of the ASCENT and IMMU-132-01 publications into single studies); Table S8: Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for the pooled single-arm objective response rate. | en |
| dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International | en |
| dc.rights.accessRights | open access | |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject.keyword | Triple-negative breast neoplasms | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Sacituzumab govitecan | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Antibody–drug conjugates | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Meta-analysis | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Progression-free survival | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Real-world evidence | en |
| dc.subject.unesco | 3201.01 Oncología | |
| dc.subject.unesco | 3209 Farmacología | |
| dc.title | Sacituzumab Govitecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Single-Arm Efficacy and Integration of Randomized and Real-World Evidence | en |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dc.type.hasVersion | VoR | |
| dc.volume.number | 18 |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
