Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
Neoadjuvant metformin on clinical and pathological response in non-diabetic patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arriaga-Izabal Diego, Morales-Lazcano Francisco, Angulo-Zamudio Uriel A, Canizalez-Román Adrian, León-Sicairos Nidia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Metformin has been explored as an anticancer agent in breast cancer, but randomized trial evidence remains inconsistent. This updated review evaluated neoadjuvant metformin's effect on response outcomes in non-diabetic patients with non-metastatic breast cancer.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD420251039988). PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP were searched until April 2025. Randomized-controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant metformin plus standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone in non-diabetic patients with stage I-III breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were pathological and clinical complete response (pCR/cCR); secondary outcomes were overall response and pathological response (oRR/oPR), with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) evaluated as a tertiary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Post-hoc meta-regression and subgroup analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Fifteen trials, including 1,125 patients, were analyzed. Metformin was not significantly associated with improvements in pCR (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.40), cCR (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.87-2.70), oRR (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.69), oPR (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96-1.52), or BCS (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.35). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested increased pCR in HER2 + disease (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.49). Higher study-level body mass index (BMI) was associated with improved response outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant metformin did not significantly improve treatment response in non-diabetic patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, though these findings are limited by low-to-very low certainty of evidence. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested potential benefits in HER2 + disease and in studies with higher BMI, warranting further investigation.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD420251039988). PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP were searched until April 2025. Randomized-controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant metformin plus standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone in non-diabetic patients with stage I-III breast cancer were included. Primary outcomes were pathological and clinical complete response (pCR/cCR); secondary outcomes were overall response and pathological response (oRR/oPR), with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) evaluated as a tertiary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Post-hoc meta-regression and subgroup analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Fifteen trials, including 1,125 patients, were analyzed. Metformin was not significantly associated with improvements in pCR (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.40), cCR (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.87-2.70), oRR (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.69), oPR (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96-1.52), or BCS (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.35). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested increased pCR in HER2 + disease (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.49). Higher study-level body mass index (BMI) was associated with improved response outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant metformin did not significantly improve treatment response in non-diabetic patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, though these findings are limited by low-to-very low certainty of evidence. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested potential benefits in HER2 + disease and in studies with higher BMI, warranting further investigation.