BACKGROUND: Several trials have demonstrated the benefit of anti-CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (BC), in first or subsequent lines of therapy. However, due to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons, there are no data demonstrating the superiority of one drug over the other. We compared the effectiveness of palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib in advanced ER + BC via an indirect adjusted analysis. METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating anti-CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine agents. We compared the results with an adjusted indirect analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and G3-4 toxicities occurring in ≥ 5% of patients. RESULTS: Six trials and six treatment arms including a total of 3743 participants, were included. For PFS and ORR analysis, the three agents were similar in both first- and second-line studies. All G3-4 toxicities were similar, with reduced risk of diarrhea for palbociclib versus abemaciclib (relative risk [RR] 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.92; P = 0.04) and of QTc prolongation for palbociclib versus ribociclib (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0-0.83; P = 0.03). Despite different inclusion criteria and length of follow-up, similar features were noticed among second-line studies with the exception of increased risk of anemia G3-4 and diarrhea G3-4 for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Based on PFS and ORR results of this indirect meta-analysis, palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib are equally effective in either first- or second-line therapy for advanced ER + BC. They, however, ported different toxicity profiles.
BACKGROUND: Several trials have demonstrated the benefit of anti-CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (BC), in first or subsequent lines of therapy. However, due to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons, there are no data demonstrating the superiority of one drug over the other. We compared the effectiveness of palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib in advanced ER + BC via an indirect adjusted analysis. METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating anti-CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine agents. We compared the results with an adjusted indirect analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and G3-4 toxicities occurring in ≥ 5% of patients. RESULTS: Six trials and six treatment arms including a total of 3743 participants, were included. For PFS and ORR analysis, the three agents were similar in both first- and second-line studies. All G3-4 toxicities were similar, with reduced risk of diarrhea for palbociclib versus abemaciclib (relative risk [RR] 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.92; P = 0.04) and of QTc prolongation for palbociclib versus ribociclib (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0-0.83; P = 0.03). Despite different inclusion criteria and length of follow-up, similar features were noticed among second-line studies with the exception of increased risk of anemia G3-4 and diarrhea G3-4 for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Based on PFS and ORR results of this indirect meta-analysis, palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib are equally effective in either first- or second-line therapy for advanced ER + BC. They, however, ported different toxicity profiles.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; CDK-4/6 inhibitors; Meta-analysis
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Thomas E Delea; Yen-Shen Lu; Richard De Boer; Sara A Hurvitz; Aaron Moynahan; David Chandiwana; Brad Lanoue; Huilin Hu; Astrid Thuerigen; Joyce O'Shaughnessy Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 3.989