{"title":"Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on Treating Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer After CDK4/6 Inhibitors.","authors":"Neha Pathak, Abhenil Mittal, Sudhir Kumar, Chitrakshi Nagpal, Eitan Amir, Partha Haldar, Bharath B Gangadharaiah, Akash Kumar, Ashutosh Mishra, Atul Batra","doi":"10.3390/curroncol32010053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The optimal treatment of estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after progression on cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase-II/-III randomized trials of ER + MBC post CDK4/6i + ET progression. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using generic inverse variance and odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method for adverse events (AEs) with Review-Manager version-5.4. NMA was executed using WINBUGS (Microsoft Excel). Three molecular subgroups were analyzed: HER2-low, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, and the ESR1 mutation subgroup for selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 studies were included. In the HER2-low group, Sacituzumab govitecan and trastuzumab deruxtecan had a similar efficacy (HR, 95% CI): PFS (0.98; 0.63-1.43) and OS (1.08; 0.76-1.55). In PI3K/AKT/mTOR-altered cases, capivasertib was superior to alpelisib PFS (0.77; 0.53-1.12), and OS (0.80; 0.48-1.35). SERDs had worse PFS and OS versus ongoing CDK 4/6i (ribociclib).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No therapy emerged as the unequivocal choice in the post-CDK 4/6i domain in unselected subgroups. In the HER2-low population, a similar efficacy and different toxicity spectrum was seen. In AKT-altered tumors, capivasertib was less toxic than alpelisib.</p><p><strong>Prospero id: </strong>CRD4202236412.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32010053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The optimal treatment of estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after progression on cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) is unknown.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase-II/-III randomized trials of ER + MBC post CDK4/6i + ET progression. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using generic inverse variance and odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method for adverse events (AEs) with Review-Manager version-5.4. NMA was executed using WINBUGS (Microsoft Excel). Three molecular subgroups were analyzed: HER2-low, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, and the ESR1 mutation subgroup for selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD).
Results: A total of 14 studies were included. In the HER2-low group, Sacituzumab govitecan and trastuzumab deruxtecan had a similar efficacy (HR, 95% CI): PFS (0.98; 0.63-1.43) and OS (1.08; 0.76-1.55). In PI3K/AKT/mTOR-altered cases, capivasertib was superior to alpelisib PFS (0.77; 0.53-1.12), and OS (0.80; 0.48-1.35). SERDs had worse PFS and OS versus ongoing CDK 4/6i (ribociclib).
Conclusion: No therapy emerged as the unequivocal choice in the post-CDK 4/6i domain in unselected subgroups. In the HER2-low population, a similar efficacy and different toxicity spectrum was seen. In AKT-altered tumors, capivasertib was less toxic than alpelisib.
期刊介绍:
Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease.
We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.