Advertisement

Breast Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 479–488 | Cite as

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

  • Allan Ramos-Esquivel
  • Hellen Hernández-Steller
  • Marie-France Savard
  • Denis Ulises Landaverde
Original Article

Abstract

Background

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Abemaciclib Breast cancer Cyclin-dependent kinase Palbociclib Ribociclib 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

12282_2018_848_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (115 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 115 kb)
12282_2018_848_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (35 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 34 kb)
12282_2018_848_MOESM3_ESM.tiff (290 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 290 kb)
12282_2018_848_MOESM4_ESM.tiff (290 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 290 kb)
12282_2018_848_MOESM5_ESM.tiff (282 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 281 kb)
12282_2018_848_MOESM6_ESM.tiff (282 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (TIFF 281 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Group EBCTC, (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Rugo HS, Rumble B, Macrae E, et al. Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3069–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M, et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:520–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu J. Palbociclib: a first-in-class CDK4/CDK6 inhibitor for the treatment of hormone-receptor positive advanced breast cancer. J Hematol Oncol. 2015;8:98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coudreuse D, Nurse P. Driving the cell cycle with a minimal CDK control network. Nature. 2010;468(7327):1074–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu, et al. Recent advances of highly selective CDK4/6 inhibitors in breast cancer. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10:97.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-017-0467-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bilgin B, Sendur MAN, Sener Dede D, et al. A current and comprehensive review of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33:1559–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wesierska-Gadek J, Hajek SB, Sarg B, et al. Pleiotropic effects of selective CDK inhibitors on human normal and cancer cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 2008;76:1503–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 1st ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;445:228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815–934.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS, et al. Palbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1925–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1738–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, et al. MONARCH 3: abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3638–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nabholtz JM, Buzdar A, Pollak M, et al. Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results of a North American multicenter randomized trial. Arimidex Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3758–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Robertson JF, Llombart-Cussac A, Rolski J, et al. Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from the FIRST study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4530–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hu W, Sung T, Jessen BA, et al. Mechanistic investigation of bone marrow suppression associated with palbociclib and its differentiation from cytotoxic chemotherapies. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(8):2000–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costa R, Gradishar WJ. Differences are important: breast cancer therapy in different ethnic groups. J Glob Oncol. 2017;3:281–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin Gomez S, Clarke CA, Shema SJ, et al. Disparities in breast cancer survival among asian women by ethnicity and immigrant status: a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:861–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Finn RS, Aleshin A, Slamon DJ. Targeting the cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) 4/6 in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan Ramos-Esquivel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hellen Hernández-Steller
    • 1
  • Marie-France Savard
    • 3
  • Denis Ulises Landaverde
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Departamento de Oncología MédicaHospital San Juan de DiosSan JoseCosta Rica
  2. 2.Escuela de MedicinaUniversidad de Costa RicaSan JoseCosta Rica
  3. 3.Department of OncologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Departamento de Oncología MédicaHospital MéxicoSan JoseCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations