Jame Abraham1, Robert Coleman2, Anthony Elias3, Frankie Ann Holmes4, Kevin Kalinsky5, Muaiad Kittaneh6, Elyse Lower7, Reshma Mahtani8, E Terry Mamounas9, Mark Pegram10, Charles Vogel11. 1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK. 3. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. 4. Texas Oncology, Austin, TX, USA. 5. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 8. University of Miami, Deerfield Beach, FL, USA. rmahtani@miami.edu. 9. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 10. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 11. University of Miami, Deerfield Beach, FL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of clinical data supporting the use of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), from the perspective of the practicing oncologist community. METHODS: A recent roundtable discussion was convened by The Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG) to review existing data on this topic and its impact on their current practice. RESULTS: Level 1 evidence now supports use of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with HR+, HER2-, mBC. Currently, there are no biomarkers that reliably define patients who will, or will not, benefit from the addition of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor to their endocrine therapy. Additional research is needed to identify the optimal sequencing of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in relation to other therapies as well as the optimal duration of therapy; at present, evidence suggests that use in the upfront setting is better than waiting for a later line of therapy, or adding after endocrine therapy has started. CONCLUSIONS: Thus far, three CDK 4/6 inhibitors-palbociclib, ribociclib, and more recently, abemaciclib-have been approved for use in the setting of HR+, HER2-, mBC. The degrees to which these agents differ in terms of CDK4/6 affinity, side-effect profiles, dosing, degree of central nervous system (CNS) penetration, optimal use in combination with antiestrogen therapy, and across other subsets of breast cancer, remain an active area of investigation.
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of clinical data supporting the use of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), from the perspective of the practicing oncologist community. METHODS: A recent roundtable discussion was convened by The Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG) to review existing data on this topic and its impact on their current practice. RESULTS: Level 1 evidence now supports use of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with HR+, HER2-, mBC. Currently, there are no biomarkers that reliably define patients who will, or will not, benefit from the addition of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor to their endocrine therapy. Additional research is needed to identify the optimal sequencing of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in relation to other therapies as well as the optimal duration of therapy; at present, evidence suggests that use in the upfront setting is better than waiting for a later line of therapy, or adding after endocrine therapy has started. CONCLUSIONS: Thus far, three CDK 4/6 inhibitors-palbociclib, ribociclib, and more recently, abemaciclib-have been approved for use in the setting of HR+, HER2-, mBC. The degrees to which these agents differ in terms of CDK4/6 affinity, side-effect profiles, dosing, degree of central nervous system (CNS) penetration, optimal use in combination with antiestrogen therapy, and across other subsets of breast cancer, remain an active area of investigation.
Entities:
Keywords:
BCTEG; Breast cancer; CDK; Cyclin-dependent kinase; Endocrine therapy; Hormone receptor positive; Metastatic breast cancer
Authors: Marissa Meegdes; Sandra M E Geurts; Frans L G Erdkamp; Marcus Wouter Dercksen; Birgit E P J Vriens; Kirsten N A Aaldering; Manon J A E Pepels; Linda M H van de Winkel; Nathalie J A Teeuwen; Maaike de Boer; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Shaokun Shu; Hua-Jun Wu; Jennifer Y Ge; Rhamy Zeid; Isaac S Harris; Bojana Jovanović; Katherine Murphy; Binbin Wang; Xintao Qiu; Jennifer E Endress; Jaime Reyes; Klothilda Lim; Alba Font-Tello; Sudeepa Syamala; Tengfei Xiao; Chandra Sekhar Reddy Chilamakuri; Evangelia K Papachristou; Clive D'Santos; Jayati Anand; Kunihiko Hinohara; Wei Li; Thomas O McDonald; Adrienne Luoma; Rebecca J Modiste; Quang-De Nguyen; Brittany Michel; Paloma Cejas; Cigall Kadoch; Jacob D Jaffe; Kai W Wucherpfennig; Jun Qi; X Shirley Liu; Henry Long; Myles Brown; Jason S Carroll; Joan S Brugge; James Bradner; Franziska Michor; Kornelia Polyak Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Mariane Teodoro Fernandes; Jacob J Adashek; Carmelia Maria Noia Barreto; Ana Cláudia Barbin Spinosa; Barbara de Souza Gutierres; Gilberto Lopes; Auro Del Giglio; Pedro Nazareth Aguiar Journal: Drugs Context Date: 2018-11-05
Authors: Christine Brezden-Masley; Kelly E Fathers; Megan E Coombes; Behin Pourmirza; Cloris Xue; Katarzyna J Jerzak Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: C Louwrens Braal; Elisabeth M Jongbloed; Saskia M Wilting; Ron H J Mathijssen; Stijn L W Koolen; Agnes Jager Journal: Drugs Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 9.546