Supplementary Figures: Efficacy of tucatinib for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after HER2-targeted therapy: a network meta-analysis.docx
Supplementary Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of literature review and identification of studies for inclusion in the NMA.
Supplementary Figure 2. Bayesian FE fractional polynomial estimates for (A) PFS by study arm; (B) PFS by treatment; (C) OS by study arm; (D) OS by treatment.Supplementary Figure 3. Analyses of heterogeneity and inconsistency between included trials reporting PFS data. (A) Node-splitting analysis (inconsistency) of direct and indirect evidence [34,57]. (B) Duplicate comparisons (heterogeneity).
Supplementary Figure 4. SUCRA scores for Bayesian fixed-effects analysis of (A) PFS hazard ratios and (B) differences in mean PFS based on fractional polynomial NMA (with anchoring).
Supplementary Figure 5. Bayesian random-effects pairwise comparisons. (A) PFS hazard ratios. (B) Differences in mean PFS based on fractional polynomial NMA (with anchoring).
Supplementary Figure 6. Log(-log(survival)) plots and tests of non-proportionality for trials included in the fractional polynomial NMAs for (A) PFS and (B) OS.
Supplementary Figure 7. Mean survival estimates based on fractional polynomial analysis. (A) fixed-effects estimates for PFS; (B) random-effects estimates for PFS; (C) fixed-effects estimates for OS; (D) random-effects estimates for OS.
Supplementary Figure 8. Analysis of heterogeneity between duplicate comparisons of OS.
Supplementary Figure 9. SUCRA scores for Bayesian fixed-effects analysis of (A) OS hazard ratios and (B) differences in mean OS based on fractional polynomial NMA (with anchoring).
Supplementary Figure 10. Bayesian random-effects pairwise comparisons. (A) OS hazard ratios. (B) Differences in mean OS based on fractional polynomial NMA (with anchoring). |