MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396532678 · doi:10.3390/jpm14050464

Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors Plus Endocrine Therapy versus Endocrine Therapy Alone for HR-Positive, HER-2-Negative Early Breast Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials

2024· article· en· W4396532678 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco Cézar Aquino de Moraes, Gustavo de Oliveira Almeida, Vinícius Freire Costa Alves, Jonathan N. Priantti, Giovanna da Conceição Gomes, Sarah Vitória Bristot Carnevalli, Thiago Madeira, Maysa Vilbert, Carlos Stecca, Maria Cristina Figueroa Magalhães, Marianne Rodrigues Fernandes, Ney Pereira Carneiro dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personalized Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversidade Federal do ParáConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBreast cancerOncologyFulvestrantMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialClinical trialCancerEstrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors are approved for advanced breast cancer combined with endocrine therapy (ET). The efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET in hormone estrogen-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) early-stage breast cancer (esBC) is still to be confirmed. Methods: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CDK4/6i plus ET in esBC. Main outcomes included invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), and overall survival (OS). We included only phase III randomized controlled trials. We used RStudio version 4.2.3, and we considered p < 0.05 to be statistically significant. Results: Four studies were selected, including 14,168 patients, of which 7089 were treated with CDK4/6i plus ET and 7079 received ET monotherapy. Regarding patient characteristics, 6828 (48.2%) were premenopausal. Compared with ET alone, iDFS rates (HR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.98; p = 0.034) were significantly in favor of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET. However, there were no significant differences in DRFS (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.07; p = 0.132) nor OS (HR 0.96; 95% CI: 0.69, 1.35; p = 0.829). Conclusions: Our results show that the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors is associated with a significant benefit for HR+/HER2− esBC patients in iDFS. More studies and longer follow-up are needed to assess overall survival benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.043
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personalized MedicineSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207