Abstract PO5-04-11: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) beyond progression in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction The use of CDK 4/6i (palbociclib/ribociclib/abemaciclib) with endocrine therapy (ET) is a widely adopted first line standard treatment for hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer (HR+ABC). Data supporting incorporation of CDK 4/6i ± ET beyond progression are less clear. Recent studies have evaluated either the continuation of or switching to a different CDK 4/6i, with a change in ET after progression on 1st line CDK4/6i with varying results. A pooled analysis of this strategy could be useful for clinical decision making. Methods We reviewed reports of both observational and clinical studies that evaluated continuing the same CDK4/6i or switching to a different agent after progression on first line CDK4/6i with ET. The search included the grey literature without exclusions for publication year or language. The mean overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and progression free survival (PFS) weighted by study sample size were calculated. Meta-regression comprising linear regression weighted by sample size (mixed effects) was performed to explore the association between disease and treatment-related factors and benefit from continuing a CDK4/6i. Quantitative significance was assessed using the Burnand criteria. Analyses were performed using SPSS version 28 (IBM Corp, Armonk NY). Results Thirteen studies (N=1006 patients) were included; 7 were prospective trials and 2 cohorts of the same retrospective study included separately). Study patients had a median age of 57.8 years and 66% had visceral metastases. Among patients whose type of first-line CDK 4/6i exposure was reported (84.5%), 81.21% received Palbociclib 3.28% received Ribociclib and 0.89% received Abemaciclib. Six patients received both Palbociclib and Ribociclib. The median duration of first line CDK 4/6i therapy was 13.8 months. In the second line,the mean ORR was 12.8%, CBR 38.8%, and median PFS was 4.6 months. The ORRs for Palbociclib, Ribociclib and Abemaciclib, irrespective of type of prior CDK 4/6i, were 7.3%, 14.7% and 18.6%, respectively. The CBR for Palbociclib, Ribociclib and Abemaciclib were 33.1%, 42.2% and 46.8%, respectively. The median PFS based the CDK 4/6i used in second line was 4.2 (Palbociclib), 5.5 (Ribociclib) and 9.2 (Abemaciclib) months. Meta-regression analysis of PFS is included in the table. Conclusion Continuing a CDK 4/6i± ET beyond progression yields modest benefits. Switching CDK4/6i offers slightly better ORR and PFS. Continuing Palbociclib beyond progression does not seem beneficial. Longer duration of CDK4i exposure in the first line appears to be associated with shorter PFS in the second line. Small number of studies with limited number of patients likely affect results. Meta-regression analysis of PFS of CDK 4/6i with or without ET in subsequent line of therapy. Citation Format: Neha Pathak, Sudhir Kumar, Diego Malon Gimenez, Massimo Di Iorio, Consolacion Molto Valiente, Danielle Cuthbert, Meredith Li, Atul Batra, Michelle Nadler, Eitan Amir, Abhenil Mittal. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) beyond progression in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-04-11.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».