Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment for post-menopausal metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized clinical trials
- 1.2k Downloads
To compare the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors and nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AI) versus AI alone as first-line therapy for patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
Materials and methods
Phase III randomized clinical trials (RCT) were identified after a systematic review of electronic databases. A random-effect model was used to determine the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) using the inverse-variance method. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for overall response, clinical benefit rate and treatment-related side effects. Heterogeneity was measured using the tau-squared and I2 statistics.
After a systematic search, three phase III RCT (n = 1827) were included. The use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors (abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib) in combination with an AI was significantly associated with longer PFS compared to the use of letrozole or anastrozole alone (HR: 0.57; 95% CI 0.50–0.65; p < 0.00001), with no significant heterogeneity among trials. Similarly, overall response rate and clinical benefit rate were higher for patients who received the combination therapy than for patients allocated to AI alone. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related side effects were more frequently reported for patients who received CDK 4/6 inhibitors (OR: 7.51; 95% CI 6.01–9.38; p < 0.00001), these included mainly neutropenia, leukopenia and anemia.
The addition of CDK 4/6 inhibitors (either abemaciclib, palbociclib, or ribociclib) to an AI (anastrozole or letrozole) significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, and clinical benefit rate in comparison with a nonsteroidal AI alone.
KeywordsAbemaciclib Breast cancer Cyclin-dependent kinase Palbociclib Ribociclib
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 2.Migliaccio I, Malorni L, Hart CD, Guarducci C, Di Leo A. Endocrine therapy considerations in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 negative advanced breast cancers. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0280-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Cardoso F, Costa A, Senkus E, Aapro M, Andre F, Barrios CH, Bergh J, Bhattacharyya G, Biganzoli L, Cardoso MJ, Carey L, et al. 3rd ESO–ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 3). Ann Oncol. 2017;28:16–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw544.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y, et al. Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2596–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Paridaens RJ, Dirix LY, Beex LV, et al. Phase III study comparing exemestane with tamoxifen as first-line hormonal treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4883–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar