Abstract
Purpose
Combining CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (ET) improved outcomes for the treatment of metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancers. Here, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to better define the benefit and the risk of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET for endocrine-sensitive or endocrine-resistant population in metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.
Method
A systematic literature search of Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out up to 30 June 2018. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival (PFS), as well as odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rates, ≥ G3–G4 adverse events (AEs), and G3–G4 neutropenia were calculated for each trial. A meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model.
Results
Eight RCTs were eligible including 4578 breast cancer patients. Adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET in endocrine-sensitive (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.50–0.62) or endocrine-resistant setting (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43–0.61) significantly improved the PFS of metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancers regardless of menopausal status and site of metastasis. Moreover, CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET meaningfully improved objective response rate in endocrine-sensitive (ORs 0.62, 95% CI 0.52–0.73) or endocrine-resistant setting (ORs 0.33, 95% CI 0.24–0.47). The use of these drugs was characterized by a significant increase of G3–G4 AEs (OR 10.88, 95% CI 6.53–18.14).
Conclusion
Emerging data provide a new standard treatment for advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer, regardless of menopausal status, prior hormonal/chemotherapy treatments delivered, sites of metastasis. However, benefits should be balanced with longer treatment duration, toxicities, and costs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Breast cancer accounts for over one million cases per year resulting in the most frequently diagnosed neoplasm worldwide and the leading cause of cancer death in women [1]. Although metastatic breast cancer is still an incurable disease, the approval of novel effective chemotherapies and endocrine therapies (ET) led to an improvement of overall survival (OS) [2]. Hormonal receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) tumours represent the largest therapeutic subtype and are responsible for 65% of all breast cancers [3]. For many decades, targeting the oestrogen-receptor signalling pathway has represented the mainstay for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer [4]. However, all metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancers progress despite the oestrogen-receptor pathway blockade and acquire resistance to ET [5]. The cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) are a large family of serine-threonine kinases involved in the regulation of cell cycle progression [6]. Cyclin D binds both CDK 4 and CDK 6 and induces the hyper-phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma (Rb) protein causing the progression of tumour cells from the G1 checkpoint to the S phase of cell cycle [6]. The de-regulation of Cyclin D/CDK4–6/Rb pathway is associated with the development of endocrine resistance in breast cancer [6]. This provides the rationale for the inhibition of Cyclin D/CDK4–6/Rb pathway in order to overcome the resistance to ET. In the last few years, several CDK inhibitors (CDKi) have been approved for the treatment of women with metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Three prospective randomized clinical trials showed that upfront combination of palbociclib/ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) of postmenopausal women with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer [7,8,9]. Similarly, combining palbociclib/abemaciclib with fulvestrant meaningfully prolonged PFS compared with fulvestrant alone in women with any menopausal status who had previously progressed to ET [10, 11]. A randomized phase III trial (MONARCH 3) showed that abemaciclib plus a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) significantly improved PFS compared with AI alone in postmenopausal women with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer who had no prior systemic treatment [12]. Recently, a randomized, double blind, phase III (MONALEESA 7) placebo-controlled trial revealed that adding ribociclib to tamoxifen or AI improved PFS in premenopausal woman with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer [13]. Furthermore, a randomized, double blind, phase III (MONALEESA 3) placebo-controlled trial showed that ribociclib plus fulvestrant meaningfully improved PFS in postmenopausal woman with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer who were treatment naïve or had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy [14].
In order to better define the benefit and the risk related to the combine use of CDKi 4/6 with ET in HR+/HER2− breast cancer, we performed a meta-analysis of published trials.
Method
The study design was a quantitative synthesis of RCTs aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CDKi plus ET in HR+/HER2− breast cancers.
Study objectives
The co-primary objectives of the study were (I) to compare the impact on PFS duration and AEs incidence of CDKi plus ET versus ET alone in metastatic HR+ HER2− breast cancer patients in endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant setting. Secondary objectives were (I) to compare the objective response rate (ORR) of CDKi plus ET versus ET alone in metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients in endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant setting; (II) to compare the PFS in the subgroup of HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients with visceral metastasis and non-visceral metastasis treated with CDKi plus ET versus ET in endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant setting; (III) to compare the incidence of grade 3 (G3) and G4 neutropenia in HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients treated with CDKi plus ET in endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant setting, and in overall population.
Data sources and strategies
A literature search using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with no data restriction was carried out up to 30 June 2018. The search strategy included the keywords related to “breast cancer”, “CDK inhibitors”, “palbociclib”, “ribociclib”, “abemaciclib”, “endocrine therapy”, and “aromatase inhibitor”. A computerized search of the abstracts reported at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) library was performed from 2004 up to June 2018 in order to identify relevant unpublished studies. Specific keywords for each database and free text terms were combined with Boolean operators. Two reviewers (CM and CC) screened all full-text articles and abstracts independently. A third author (EZ) reviewed the search results to apply the eligibility criteria to both sets of search outcomes and acted as an arbiter in case of disagreement between the two reviewers (CM and CC). Finally, a crosscheck reference from review articles and relevant studies on the same topic was performed to confirm retrieval of all possible pertinent trials.
The work was done and reported according to PRISMA guidelines for reporting of systematic reviews [15].
Selection of the articles
Eligible studies had to fulfil the following inclusion criteria: (i) randomized phase II and III trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ET ± CDK4/6 inhibitors in the “endocrine-sensitive” and “endocrine-resistant” populations; (ii) the hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) for PFS of the whole population and in the subgroup of metastatic women with HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients, ≥ G3–G4 adverse events (AEs), G3–G4 neutropenia, and ORR had to be reported or could be computed from data presented in the selected studies.
Studies excluded from the analysis were those with the following characteristics: (i) non-randomized prospective studies designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CDKi plus ET versus ET alone; (ii) retrospective studies; (iii) on-going studies which had not yet been presented or published at the time of the literature search. No language restriction was applied. For each eligible study, we collected study design, risks of bias, number of patients enrolled overall and into each treatment arm, main eligibility criteria of patients enrolled in each study number of PFS and ORR events, main ≥ G3–G4 AEs.
Statistical analysis
For data analysis, descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics data. A quantitative synthesis (pooled analysis) was performed on eligible randomized clinical trials if methodologically appropriate. For time-to-event data, HR and 95% of confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare results. A HR < 1 indicates that the use of CDKi plus ET yielded a lower probability of progression. A HR > 1 indicates that the use of CDKi increases the probability of progression. Odds ratios (ORs) based on events data were calculated to compare ≥ G3–G4 AEs, G3–G4 neutropenia, and ORs between CDKi plus ET versus ET alone. An OR < 1 indicates that the use of CDKi plus ET yielded a lower probability to develop lower ≥ G3–G4 AEs and G3–G4 neutropenia compared to ET alone. An OR > 1 indicates that the use of CDKi increases the probability of developing ≥ G3–G4 AEs and G3–G4 neutropenia.
The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to obtain random-effects model estimates of the pooled HR [16], because it is generally considered more appropriate than the fixed models in the presence of significant heterogeneity among studies [17]. Standard checks of the homogeneity assumption were carried out [18]. The Higgins’ I2 index was computed to obtain a quantitative measure of the degree of inconsistency in the results of the studies included [17]. All statistical analysis and the generation of forest plot were carried out using Cochrane RevMan version 5.2 software (Cochrane Tech, London, UK).
Results
The search strategy returned 268 records (Fig. 1): after the exclusion of 222 irrelevant publications, 46 were identified as records eligible for the present study. However, 33 full-text records were excluded because it did not fulfil all the prefixed eligibility criteria. Therefore, 13 records resulted eligible for our systematic review, but five were excluded because they were based on subgroup analysis or updated data after prior publication [19,20,21,22,23]. One phase II trial [7] and seven randomized phase III trials [8,9,10,11,12,13,14] reporting data on the efficacy and safety of CDKi plus ET vs ET alone were included and discussed. Five trials out of eight enrolled patients in endocrine-sensitive setting [7,8,9, 12, 13; 12, 13], two were carried in endocrine-resistant setting [10, 11], and only one trial included women ET naïve or who progressed to one prior line of ET [14]. A total of 4578 metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients (CDKi: 2792, ET: 1763) were enrolled in the eight trials. Main characteristics of these patients’ cohorts are summarized in Table 1. Risks of bias assessment are summarized in Table 2.
PFS
One phase II trial [7] and five phase III trials [8, 9, 12,13,14] included in our systematic review assessed the efficacy of CDKi plus ET versus ET alone in endocrine sensitive setting; hence results were suitable for the meta-analysis (Fig. 2a). A total of 2009 patients were enrolled in the CDKi plus ET arm and 1381 in the ET arm. The addition of CDKi to ET was associated with a statistically significant PFS benefit (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.50–0.62) for metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients in endocrine-sensitive setting. Moreover, combination treatment improved PFS both in women with visceral metastasis at presentation (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47–0.65) and in those with non-visceral metastasis (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46–0.68) (Fig. 3a, c). Three phase III trials [10, 11] assessed the efficacy of CDKi plus ET versus ET alone and reported PFS HRs in endocrine-resistant setting: hence results were suitable for our meta-analysis (Fig. 2b). A total of 791 women were enrolled in the CDKi plus ET arm and 395 in the ET arm. All the women included in the two trials had been previously treated with ET. The addition of CDKi to ET was associated with a statistically significant PFS benefit (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43–0.61). The PFS advantage was significantly maintained both in patients with visceral metastasis (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.38–0.58) and in those with non-visceral metastasis (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43–0.73) (Fig. 3b, d).
Response
One phase II trial [7] and four phase III trials [8, 9, 12, 13] included in our systematic review reported on ORR events occurring in the CDKi plus ET arm and in the ET alone arm, respectively (Fig. 4). A total of 871 ORR events occurred among 1525 patients treated with CDKi plus ET, and 786 in the 1139 women receiving ET alone. The combination of CDKi plus ET significantly improved the ORR compared to ET alone (ORs: 0.62, 95% CI 052–0.73) (Fig. 4a). Two phase III trials [10, 11] reported the OR events occurring in the CDKi plus ET arm and in the ET alone arm, respectively, in endocrine-resistant setting: hence results were suitable for our meta-analysis (Fig. 4b). A total of 570 ORR events occurred among 793 patients treated with CDKi plus ET and 350 in the 397 women assigned to fulvestrant alone.
The addition of CDKi–ET was associated with a statistically significant ORR benefit (ORs 0.33, 95% CI 0.24–0.47).
Toxicities
All the trials included in our systematic review reported G3–G4 AEs occurring in the CDKi plus ET arm and in the ET alone arm (Fig. 5a). A total of 1107 out of 1541 patients (71.8%) treated with CDKi plus ET developed G3–G4 AEs compared to 313 out of 1127 women (27.8%) assigned to treatment with ET alone in endocrine-sensitive setting. The pooled ORs was 7.51 (95% CI 5.52–10.21), indicating a much higher probability of developing ≥ G3–G4 AEs for patients treated with CDKi and ET (Fig. 5a); however, significant heterogeneity between the four studies emerged (I2 63%). Two phase III trials [10, 11] included in our systematic review assessed the activity of CDKi plus ET vs ET alone in endocrine-resistant setting: hence again results were suitable for our meta-analysis. A total of 506 out of 791 patients (64%) treated with CDKi plus ET, and 82 out of 395 women (20.7%) assigned to ET alone developed G3–G4 AEs. The pooled ORs was 7.09 (95% CI 3.53–14.25), again indicating a much higher probability of developing G3–G4 AEs for patients treated with CDKi plus ET (Fig. 5b); however, significant heterogeneity between the two studies emerged (I2 83%). Again, we pooled together the eight randomized trials to assess the global impact in terms of G3–G4 AEs of combining CDKi with ET compared to ET alone [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. A total of 2006 out of 2815 patients (71.2%) treated with CDKi plus ET and 411 out of 1763 women (23.3%) assigned to ET alone developed G3–G4 AEs. The pooled ORs was 9.64 (95% CI 6.00–15.49), indicating a much higher probability of developing G3–G4 AEs for patients treated with CDKi and ET (Fig. 5c); significant heterogeneity between the eight studies emerged (I2 90%). However, the increased chance of developing G3–G4 toxicities for patients treated with CDKi plus ET may be influenced mostly by the odds to develop G3–G4 neutropenia (OR 10.88, 95% CI 6.53–18.14; Fig. 6).
Discussion
This meta-analysis shows that adding CDKi to ET significantly improves PFS compared to ET alone in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer patients both in the endocrine-sensitive (HR 0.55) and endocrine-resistant population (HR 0.51) with similar odds of G3–G4 AEs (OR 7.51 vs. 7.09).
Patients with visceral metastases represent a challenging subgroup of HR+/HER2− breast cancer women as they have poorer prognosis than those without visceral involvement [24, 25].
According to the most recent international recommendations [26], ET should be preferred to chemotherapy as upfront treatment for metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients without organ dysfunction, for the lack of evidence of any benefit from using chemotherapy prior to ET [27, 28]. Despite this, many patients with visceral disease who are not in visceral crisis receive chemotherapy as early line treatment with increased toxicity and negative impact of quality of life [24, 25].
Our meta-analysis shows that the combination of CDKi plus ET provides an improvement in PFS compared to ET both in the presence and in the absence of visceral metastasis (Fig. 3). The PFS benefit of CDKi in the subgroup with visceral involvement is maintained both in endocrine-sensitive (HR 0.55) and endocrine-resistant setting (HR 0.47). The remarkable results in the endocrine-resistant subgroup, that is known to present a more aggressive disease, as well as the evidence of enhanced activity over endocrine monotherapy in terms of response rate identify the CDKi plus ET combination as a new and even more effective option for patients with visceral metastases.
Given the lack of trials directly comparing the efficacy of CDKi plus ET vs chemotherapy, a recent Network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of palbociclib plus letrozole and palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with HR+ HER2− advanced or metastatic breast cancer in first- and second-line setting. Both palbociclib combination treatments provided meaningfully improvements in PFS compared to capecitabine and mitoxantrone, and trended toward improvements compared to paclitaxel, docetaxel, and other monotherapy or combination chemotherapy regimens [29]. Therefore, CDKi plus ET represent a new effective option for HR+/HER2− breast cancer patients and should be preferred to upfront chemotherapy.
Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that the use of CDKi in combination with ET significantly increases the incidence of G3–G4 AEs (OR 9.64). These data are remarkable and should be carefully considered on the light of the longer duration of the treatment.
The safety profile of CDKi is mainly influenced by hematologic toxicity, with a significant risk of developing G3–G4 neutropenia over ET alone (OR 10.88). Our results are in line with a recently published meta-analysis comparing the safety profile of different targeted agents in combination to ET, where the addition of CDKi was associated to a greater risk to develop G3–4 toxicities respect to mTOR, PI3K, and HER2 inhibitors [30]. Despite the hematologic toxicity as a class-specific AE and the increased risk of G3–4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) with CDKi is 1.2 over 0.1% with ET.
CDKi effects bone marrow through cell cycle arrest and not through cell apoptosis and this is rapidly reversible when the targeted agent is stopped [31]. This mechanism could explain the low rate of FN as well as the low rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs observed with CDKi in these trials.
When evaluating risk and benefits of a specific treatment, AEs should be considered for their influence on quality of life (QoL). Neutropenia has been shown to have a minimal impact on QoL and this was confirmed in two recent publications, where CDKi plus ET maintained QoL and improved pain scores over ET [23, 32].
Our results highlight that adding CDKi to ET improves clinical outcomes compared to ET alone, regardless the number of prior treatments received and sites of metastasis with manageable toxicity and represent an alternative option to current standard treatment, including chemotherapy. Data from three randomized trials enrolling pre- and peri-menopausal patients reported a significant PFS advantage for CDKi and ET over ET [13, 21, 33], demonstrating that this combination is effective irrespective of the menopausal status.
Unfortunately, clinical trials included in this meta-analysis were not powered to detect an OS advantage and indeed the majority of survival results are still pending. Survival results from the PALOMA-1 phase II trial were presented at ASCO annual meeting 2017 [34], demonstrating a non-significant trend toward better OS for the combination of palbociclib and letrozole vs letrozole as frontline treatment for HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer [37.5 vs. 34.5 months, HR 0.897 (95% CI: 0.623–1.294); P = 0.281]. Preliminary survival data after 26.4 months follow-up from the MONALEESA-2 were recently published but are still immature for any conclusion [35]. Longer follow-up is strongly awaited to obtain final OS from the other trials in order to check the effectiveness of these drugs. However, the observed PFS benefit is consistent across the eight trials and is clinically relevant; even in the absence of mature data, the magnitude of PFS benefit is likely to translate in a significant improvement in OS [36, 37].
Several limitations of the present pooled analysis should be acknowledged; these include the lack of individual patient data (all data extracted are not based on individual patient data, but were retrieved from published articles), absence of mature OS data from most of the trials included in the present meta-analysis.
Nonetheless, these limitations probably do not significantly influence the overall interpretation of our findings, which strongly suggest that adding CDKi to ET significantly improved clinical outcome of ER+/HER2− breast cancers despite an increased ≥ G3–G4 AEs.
Conclusion
Emerging data provide a new standard treatment for advanced HR+/Her2− breast cancer, regardless of menopausal status, prior hormonal/chemotherapy treatments delivered, sites of metastasis. However, benefits should be balanced with longer treatment duration, toxicities, and costs. Mature OS data are awaited. Head-to-head trials are warranted to compare the efficacy of CDKi plus ET or chemotherapy especially for women with high tumour burden and visceral metastases in order to improve patient’s selection and maximize the benefit from the combined approach.
References
DeSantis CE, Ma J, Goding Sauer A, Newman LA, Jemal A (2017) Breast cancer statistics, 2017, racial disparity in mortality by state. CA Cancer J Clin 67(6):439–448
Gennari A, Conte P, Rosso R, Orlandini C, Bruzzi P (2005) Survival of metastatic breast carcinoma patients over a 20-year period: a retrospective analysis based on individual patient data from six consecutive studies. Cancer 104(8):1742–1750
Lindström LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, Johansson U, Hartman J, Lidbrink EK, Hatschek T, Skoog L, Bergh J (2012) Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2601–2608
Rugo HS, Rumble RB, Burstein HJ (2016) Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline summary. J Oncol Pract 12(6):583–587
Osborne CK, Schiff R (2011) Mechanisms of endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Annu Rev Med 62:233–247
Finn RS, Aleshin A, Slamon DJ (2016) Targeting the cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)4/6 in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res 18(1):17
Finn RS, Crown JP, Lang I, Boer K, Bondarenko IM, Kulyk SO, Ettl J, Patel R, Pinter T, Schmidt M et al (2015) The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 16(1):25–35
Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS, Jones S, Im S-A, Gelmon K, Harbeck N, Lipatov ON, Walshe JM, Moulder S, Gauthier E, Lu DR, Randolph S, Diéras V, Slamon DJ (2016) Palbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(20):1925–1936
Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, Paluch-Shimon S, Campone M, Blackwell KL, Andre F, Winer EP, Janni W et al (2016) Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(18):1738–1748
Cristofanilli M, Turner NC, Bondarenko I, Ro J, Im S-A, Masuda N, Colleoni M, DeMichele A, Loi S, Verma S, Iwata S, Harbeck N, Zhang K et al (2016) Fulvestrant plus palbociclib versus fulvestrant plus placebo for treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 17(4):425–439
Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, Sohn J, Inoue K, Pivot X, Burdaeva O, Okera M, Masuda N, Kaufman PA, Koh H, Grischke EM, Frenzel M, Lin Y, Barriga S, Smith IC, Bourayou N, Llombart-Cussac A (2017) MONARCH 2: abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol 35(25):2875–2884
Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, Sohn J, Paluch-Shimon S, Huober J, Park IH, Trédan O, Chen SC, Manso L, Freedman OC, Garnica Jaliffe G, Forrester T, Frenzel M, Barriga S, Smith IC, Bourayou N, Di Leo A (2017) MONARCH 3: abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(32):3638–3646
Tripathy D, Im SA, Colleoni M, Franke F, Bardia A, Harbeck N, Hurvitz SA, Chow L, Sohn J, Lee KS, Campos-Gomez S, Villanueva Vazquez R, Jung KH, Babu KG, Wheatley-Price P, De Laurentiis M, Im YH, Kuemmel S, El-Saghir N, Liu MC, Carlson G, Hughes G, Diaz-Padilla I, Germa C, Hirawat S, Lu YS (2018) Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer (MONALEESA-7): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30292-4
Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, De Laurentiis M, Im SA, Petrakova K, Bianchi GV, Esteva FJ, Martín M, Nusch A, Sonke GS, De la Cruz-Merino L, Beck JT, Pivot X, Vidam G, Wang Y, Rodriguez Lorenc K, Miller M, Taran T, Jerusalem G (2018) Phase III randomized study of ribociclib and fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: MONALEESA-3. J Clin Oncol https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9909
Greenland S, O’Rourke K (2008) Meta-analysis. In Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash T (eds), Modern Epidemiology. 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558
Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D (2002) Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 7(1):51–61
Raphael J, Helou J, Pritchard KI, Naimark DM (2017) Palbociclib in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: a cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cancer 85:146–154
Iwata H, Im SA, Masuda N, Im YH, Inoue K, Rai Y, Nakamura R, Kim JH, Hoffman JT, Zhang K, Giorgetti C, Iyer S, Schnell PT, Bartlett CH, Ro J (2017) PALOMA-3: phase III trial of fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on prior endocrine therapy-safety and efficacy in Asian patients. J Glob Oncol 3(4):289–303
Loibl S, Turner NC, Ro J, Cristofanilli M, Iwata H, Im SA, Masuda N, Loi S, André F, Harbeck N, Verma S, Folkerd E, Puyana Theall K, Hoffman J, Zhang K, Bartlett CH, Dowsett M (2017) Palbociclib combined with fulvestrant in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and prior progression on endocrine therapy: PALOMA-3 results. Oncologist 22(9):1028–1038
Verma S, Bartlett CH, Schnell P, DeMichele AM, Loi S, Ro J, Colleoni M, Iwata H, Harbeck N, Cristofanilli M, Zhang K, Thiele A, Turner NC, Rugo HS (2016) Palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced metastatic breast cancer: detailedsafety analysis from a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study (PALOMA-3). Oncologist 21(10):1165–1175
Harbeck N, Iyer S, Turner N, Cristofanilli M, Ro J, André F, Loi S, Verma S, Iwata H, Bhattacharyya H, Puyana Theall K, Bartlett CH, Loibl S (2016) Quality of life with palbociclib plus fulvestrant in previously treated hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: patient-reported outcomes from the PALOMA-3 trial. Ann Oncol 27(6):1047–1054
Harb WA (2015) Management of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer with visceral disease: challenges and treatment options. Cancer Manag Res 7:37–46
Lobbezoo DJ, van Kampen RJ, Voogd AC, Dercksen MW, van den Berkmortel F, Smilde TJ, van de Wouw AJ, Peters FP, van Riel JM, Peters NA, de Boer M, Peer PG, Tjan-Heijnen VC (2016) In real life, one-quarter of patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer receive chemotherapy as initial palliative therapy: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium. Ann Oncol 27(2):256–262
Cardoso F, Costa A, Senkus E, Aapro M, André F, Barrios CH, Bergh J, Bhattacharyya G, Biganzoli L, Cardoso MJ, Carey L, Corneliussen-James D, Curigliano G, Dieras V, El Saghir N, Eniu A, Fallowfield L, Fenech D, Francis P, Gelmon K, Gennari A, Harbeck N, Hudis C, Kaufman B, Krop I, Mayer M, Meijer H, Mertz S, Ohno S, Pagani O, Papadopoulos E, Peccatori F, Penault-Llorca F, Piccart MJ, Pierga JY, Rugo H, Shockney L, Sledge G, Swain S, Thomssen C, Tutt A, Vorobiof D, Xu B, Norton L, Winer E (2017) 3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3). Ann Oncol 28(1):16–33
Wilcken N, Hornbuckle J, Ghersi D (2003) Chemotherapy alone versus endocrine therapy alone for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD002747
Gupta S, Zhang J, Jerusalem G (2014) The association of chemotherapy versus hormonal therapy and health outcomes among patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: experience from the patient perspective. Expert Rev Pharm Outcomes Res 14(6):929–940
Wilson FR, Varu A, Mitra D, Cameron C, Iyer S (2017) Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing palbociclib with chemotherapy agents for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166(1):167–177
Martel S, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, Maurer C, Ponde NF, Ferreira AR, Viglietti G, Del Mastro L, Prady C, de Azambuja E, Lambertini M (2018) Risk of adverse events with the addition of targeted agents to endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 62:123–132
Hu W, Sung T, Jessen BA, Thibault S, Finkelstein MB, Khan NK, Sacaan AI (2016) Mechanistic investigation of bone marrow suppression associated with palbociclib and its differentiation from cytotoxic chemotherapies. Clin Cancer Res 22(8):2000–2008
Rugo HS, Diéras V, Gelmon KA, Finn RS, Slamon DJ, Martin M, Neven P, Shparyk Y, Mori A, Lu DR, Bhattacharyya H, Bartlett CH, Iyer S, Johnston S, Ettl J, Harbeck N (2018) Impact of palbociclib plus letrozole on patient-reported health-related quality of life: results from the PALOMA-2 trial. Ann Oncol 29(4):888–894
Neven P, Rugo HS, Tolaney SM, Iwata H, Toi M, Goetz MP, Kaufman PA, Barriga S, Lin Y, Sledge GW (2018) Abemaciclib for pre/perimenopausal women with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 36, (suppl; abstr 1002)
Finn RS, Crown J, Lang I, Boer K, Bondarenko I, Kulyk SO, Ettl J, Patel R, Pinter T, Schmidt M, Shparyk YV, Thummala A, Voytko NL, Fowst C, Huang X, Kim S, Slamon DJ (2017) Overall survival results from the randomized phase II study of palbociclib (P) in combination with letrozole (L) vs letrozole alone for frontline treatment of ER+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1; TRIO-18). J Clin Oncol 34:1001
Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, Paluch-Shimon S, Campone M, Petrakova K, Blackwell KL, Winer EP, Janni W, Verma S, Conte P, Arteaga CL, Cameron DA, Mondal S, Su F, Miller M, Elmeliegy M, Germa C, O’Shaughnessy J (2018) Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 29:1541–1547
Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, Kerst JM, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, de Vries EGE, Piccart MJ (2017) A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies:the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale(ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 28(11):2901–2905
Broglio KR, Berry DA (2009) Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(23):1642–1649
Funding
No funding received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
This study does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
It was unnecessary given this study does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Messina, C., Cattrini, C., Buzzatti, G. et al. CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 172, 9–21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4901-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4901-0