Qianqian Guo1, Xiaojie Lin1, Lingling Ye2, Rui Xu3, Yan Dai1, Yuzhu Zhang1, Qianjun Chen4. 1. Department of Mammary Disease, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 2. The Second Clinical College of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Mammary Disease, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. catdoctor007@163.com. 4. Department of Mammary Disease, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. cqj55@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several endocrine therapies are available for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR +) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Given the absence of direct comparisons between fulvestrant and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) in combination with aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which are both used as standard first-line treatments for ABC, an indirect comparison using a network meta-analysis may be advantageous for decision making. OBJECTIVE: We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of fulvestrant and CDK4/6is plus AIs as the first-line treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to compare these treatments, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials of first-line endocrine treatment for advanced or metastatic breast cancer until October 2018. We included a total of 11 eligible trials with 5448 patients. The hazard ratios (HRs) for the efficacies of the different treatments were used as inputs in the network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In the overall analysis, CDK4/6is plus AIs, including palbociclib plus letrozole, ribociclib plus letrozole, and abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal AI (letrozole or anastrozole), are all superior to 500 mg fulvestrant (HR = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.68; HR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.71; and HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.71; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this network meta-analysis, the comparison indicates that CDK4/6is plus AIs might represent a better option for HR+ ABC as a first-line endocrine treatment compared with fulvestrant.
BACKGROUND: Several endocrine therapies are available for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR +) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Given the absence of direct comparisons between fulvestrant and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) in combination with aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which are both used as standard first-line treatments for ABC, an indirect comparison using a network meta-analysis may be advantageous for decision making. OBJECTIVE: We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of fulvestrant and CDK4/6is plus AIs as the first-line treatment of postmenopausal breast cancerpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to compare these treatments, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials of first-line endocrine treatment for advanced or metastatic breast cancer until October 2018. We included a total of 11 eligible trials with 5448 patients. The hazard ratios (HRs) for the efficacies of the different treatments were used as inputs in the network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In the overall analysis, CDK4/6is plus AIs, including palbociclib plus letrozole, ribociclib plus letrozole, and abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal AI (letrozole or anastrozole), are all superior to 500 mg fulvestrant (HR = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.68; HR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.71; and HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.71; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this network meta-analysis, the comparison indicates that CDK4/6is plus AIs might represent a better option for HR+ ABC as a first-line endocrine treatment compared with fulvestrant.
Authors: H Mouridsen; M Gershanovich; Y Sun; R Pérez-Carrión; C Boni; A Monnier; J Apffelstaedt; R Smith; H P Sleeboom; F Jänicke; A Pluzanska; M Dank; D Becquart; P P Bapsy; E Salminen; R Snyder; M Lassus; J A Verbeek; B Staffler; H A Chaudri-Ross; M Dugan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A M Glenny; D G Altman; F Song; C Sakarovitch; J J Deeks; R D'Amico; M Bradburn; A J Eastwood Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Carla L Alves; Daniel Elias; Maria Lyng; Martin Bak; Tove Kirkegaard; Anne E Lykkesfeldt; Henrik J Ditzel Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Richard S Finn; Miguel Martin; Hope S Rugo; Stephen Jones; Seock-Ah Im; Karen Gelmon; Nadia Harbeck; Oleg N Lipatov; Janice M Walshe; Stacy Moulder; Eric Gauthier; Dongrui R Lu; Sophia Randolph; Véronique Diéras; Dennis J Slamon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Angelo Di Leo; Guy Jerusalem; Lubos Petruzelka; Roberto Torres; Igor N Bondarenko; Rustem Khasanov; Didier Verhoeven; José L Pedrini; Iya Smirnova; Mikhail R Lichinitser; Kelly Pendergrass; Luca Malorni; Sally Garnett; Yuri Rukazenkov; Miguel Martin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 13.506