Comparative overall survival of patients in trials of CKD4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1056 Background: CDK4/6i and endocrine therapy (ET) are an international gold standard therapy in estrogen receptor (ER) positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC). Individual trials of abemaciclib, palbociclib and ribociclib show similar impact on progression-free survival yet differing statistical significance for OS. A robust comparative evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the three drugs is warranted. Methods: We searched PubMed, ASCO, ESMO and SABCS proceedings to identify phase 3 randomized clinical trials reporting OS of CDK4/6i in combination with ET in ER-positive aBC in first or second line. A network meta-analysis using WinBUGS was performed to evaluate comparative efficacy, based on the ET partner, in the absence of direct comparisons. Trial level data on common and serious adverse events (AE) were extracted for each drug. The odds ratio (OR) for each AE was calculated comparing each CDK4/6i to the respective endocrine therapy backbone (aromatase inhibitor (AI) or fulvestrant) alone. Results: Seven studies comprising 4087 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median follow up was 70.2 months. Four studies paired a CDK4/6i with an AI or tamoxifen, 3 studies were paired with fulvestrant. There were no statistically significant differences in OS between any of the CDK4/6i with any ET backbone. Compared to palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib showed significantly lower grade 1-2 fatigue/asthenia (ribociclib OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.58, 0.83]; abemaciclib OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.49, 0.74]) and abemaciclib showed significantly lower grade 1-2 alopecia (abemaciclib 0.76 [95% CI 0.6, 0.97]). Compared to palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib showed significantly higher GI toxicity (ribociclib any grade vomiting OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.36, 2.15]; abemaciclib any grade vomiting OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.61, 2.62], any grade diarrhea 13.2 [95% CI 10.31, 16.78]). Treatment discontinuation was highest with abemaciclib. Conclusions: In this network meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between CDK4/6i despite differences in individual trials. Real-world data analyses may help to identify if a there is a meaningful inter-drug difference in efficacy. Significant differences between CDK4/6i are observed for safety and tolerability outcomes. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".