Comparative efficacy and safety of different combinations of three CDK4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapies in HR+/HER-2 − metastatic or advanced breast cancer patients: a network meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: This network meta-analysis aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of combinations involving three cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and endocrine therapies (ETs) in patients with metastatic or advanced breast cancer (BC) who are hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-). METHODS: We initially identified relevant studies from previous meta-analyses and then conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases to locate additional studies published between February 2020 and September 2021. Essential data were extracted, and a network meta-analysis was performed using R 4.1.1 software with a random-effects model. Furthermore, we assigned rankings to all available treatment combinations by calculating their cumulative probability. RESULTS: Data analysis included ten reports from nine studies. Pooled results demonstrated that each treatment combination significantly reduced the hazard risk of progression-free survival (PFS) compared to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or fulvestrant alone. However, there were no differences observed in PFS or overall survival (OS) among the different treatment combinations. Additionally, patients receiving palbociclib plus AI and abemaciclib plus AI or fulvestrant experienced more severe adverse events (AEs), with hazard ratios (HRs) of 10.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.3 to 52.51) and 4.8 (95%CI = 1.41 to 16.21), respectively. The HR for ribociclib plus AI was 9.45 (95%CI = 2.02 to 43.61), and the HR for palbociclib plus fulvestrant was 6.33 (95%CI = 1.03 to 39.86). Based on the ranking probabilities, palbociclib plus fulvestrant had the highest probability of achieving superior PFS (37.65%), followed by abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (28.76%). For OS, ribociclib plus fulvestrant ranked first (34.11%), with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in second place (25.75%). In terms of safety, palbociclib plus AI (53.98%) or fulvestrant (51.37%) had the highest probabilities of being associated with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant or ribociclib plus AI appear to be effective and relatively safe for the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic or advanced BC patients. However, given the reliance on limited evidence, our findings require further validation through additional studies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.