Overall Survival of CDK4/6-Inhibitor-Based Treatments in Clinically Relevant Subgroups of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Breast Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic
Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Female
Humans
Letrozole
/ administration & dosage
Neoplasm Metastasis
Piperazines
/ administration & dosage
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
/ administration & dosage
Pyridines
/ administration & dosage
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Journal
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2020
01 11 2020
Historique:
received:
03
03
2020
revised:
06
04
2020
accepted:
06
05
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
5
5
2021
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors + endocrine therapy (ET) prolonged progression-free survival as first- or second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer prognosis. Given the recent publication of overall survival (OS) data for the 3 CDK4/6-inhibitors, we performed a meta-analysis to identify a more precise and reliable benefit from such treatments in specific clinical subgroups. We conducted a systematic literature search to select all available phase II or III randomized clinical trials of CDK4/6-inhibitors + ET reporting OS data in first- or second-line therapy of HR+/HER2-negative pre- or postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer. A random effect model was applied for the analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2statistic. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the effect of study-level factors. The project was registered in the Open Science Framework database (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/TNZQP). Six studies were included in our analyses (3421 patients). A clear OS benefit was observed in patients without (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.85, I2 = 0.0%) and with visceral involvement (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.89, I2 = 0.0%), with at least 3 metastatic sites (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.94, I2 = 11.6%), in an endocrine-resistant (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.93, I2 = 0.0%) and sensitive subset (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.88, I2 = 0.0%), for younger than 65 years (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.95, I2 = 0.0%) and 65 years or older (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.95, I2 = 44.4%), in postmenopausal (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.86, I2 = 0.0%) and pre- or perimenopausal setting (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96, I2 = 0.0%) as well as in chemotherapy-naïve patients (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.93, I2 = 0.0%). CDK4/6-inhibitors + ET combinations compared with ET alone improve OS independent of age, menopausal status, endocrine sensitiveness, and visceral involvement and should be preferred as upfront therapy instead of endocrine monotherapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors + endocrine therapy (ET) prolonged progression-free survival as first- or second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer prognosis. Given the recent publication of overall survival (OS) data for the 3 CDK4/6-inhibitors, we performed a meta-analysis to identify a more precise and reliable benefit from such treatments in specific clinical subgroups.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search to select all available phase II or III randomized clinical trials of CDK4/6-inhibitors + ET reporting OS data in first- or second-line therapy of HR+/HER2-negative pre- or postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer. A random effect model was applied for the analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2statistic. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the effect of study-level factors. The project was registered in the Open Science Framework database (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/TNZQP).
RESULTS
Six studies were included in our analyses (3421 patients). A clear OS benefit was observed in patients without (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.85, I2 = 0.0%) and with visceral involvement (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.89, I2 = 0.0%), with at least 3 metastatic sites (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.94, I2 = 11.6%), in an endocrine-resistant (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.93, I2 = 0.0%) and sensitive subset (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.88, I2 = 0.0%), for younger than 65 years (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.95, I2 = 0.0%) and 65 years or older (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.95, I2 = 44.4%), in postmenopausal (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.86, I2 = 0.0%) and pre- or perimenopausal setting (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96, I2 = 0.0%) as well as in chemotherapy-naïve patients (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.93, I2 = 0.0%).
CONCLUSIONS
CDK4/6-inhibitors + ET combinations compared with ET alone improve OS independent of age, menopausal status, endocrine sensitiveness, and visceral involvement and should be preferred as upfront therapy instead of endocrine monotherapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32407488
pii: 5837114
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa071
pmc: PMC7669227
doi:
Substances chimiques
Piperazines
0
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
Pyridines
0
Letrozole
7LKK855W8I
CDK4 protein, human
EC 2.7.11.22
CDK6 protein, human
EC 2.7.11.22
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4
EC 2.7.11.22
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6
EC 2.7.11.22
palbociclib
G9ZF61LE7G
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1089-1097Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct;20(10):1360-1369
pubmed: 31494037
Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2018 May 04;10:69-78
pubmed: 29765247
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jul;152(1):95-117
pubmed: 26044370
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 1;34(25):3069-103
pubmed: 27217461
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20(12):1750-1759
pubmed: 31668850
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 17;375(20):1925-1936
pubmed: 27959613
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;29(7):1541-1547
pubmed: 29718092
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29;:
pubmed: 31563959
Clin Breast Cancer. 2019 Dec;19(6):e701-e716
pubmed: 31427171
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 20;36(24):2465-2472
pubmed: 29860922
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;35(25):2875-2884
pubmed: 28580882
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 May;46:20-6
pubmed: 27057657
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018 Jun 26;4:14
pubmed: 29951582
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov 10;35(32):3638-3646
pubmed: 28968163
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1926-1936
pubmed: 30345905
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):250-260
pubmed: 31859246
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):371-83
pubmed: 18828930
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Nov;166(1):167-177
pubmed: 28752187
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jul;19(7):904-915
pubmed: 29804902
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):307-316
pubmed: 31166679
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):25-35
pubmed: 25524798
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 20;26(12):1922-3
pubmed: 18421044
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Apr;17(4):425-439
pubmed: 26947331
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):514-524
pubmed: 31826360
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1634-1657
pubmed: 30032243
Front Oncol. 2018 Dec 12;8:608
pubmed: 30631751