# 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). |