Comparative efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with endocrine therapies for HR+/HER2-breast cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

In recent years, the combination of targeted drugs, such as Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, with endocrine therapy (ET), has emerged as a new research focus in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer. This network meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET for HR+/HER2-breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and GeenMedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR+/HER2-breast cancer. The search period spanned from the inception of each database up to February 29, 2024. Data analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0 and R 4.1.0 software.

Results

A total of 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study, investigating the effectiveness of four CDK4/6 inhibitors—Abemaciclib, Dalpiciclib, Ribociclib, and Palbociclib—when combined with ET for the treatment of HR+/HER2-breast cancer. The results indicated that Abemaciclib + ET, Dalpiciclib + ET, Palbociclib + ET, and Ribociclib + ET exhibited similar therapeutic effects in terms of improving objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and reducing the occurrence of fatigue, all of which were superior to ET alone. However, in terms of prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), Dalpiciclib + ET significantly improved PFS compared to Ribociclib + ET, Palbociclib + ET, Abemaciclib and Palbociclib. Ribociclib + ET significantly improved OS compared to Palbociclib + ET. Regarding overall adverse reaction events (AREs), Dalpiciclib + ET had a higher incidence compared to Ribociclib + ET. The incidence of neutropenia caused by Dalpiciclib + ET was significantly higher compared to Palbociclib + ET, Ribociclib + ET, Abemaciclib, and Palbociclib. Abemaciclib + ET demonstrated the worst safety profile concerning diarrhea.

Conclusion

Abemaciclib + ET likely represents the most effective option in terms of therapeutic effects, but it is prone to causing diarrhea and fatigue. On the other hand, Dalpiciclib + ET likely demonstrates the best efficacy in terms of PFS but exhibits the poorest safety profile, particularly in relation to neutropenia. Therefore, clinicians should exercise increased vigilance in monitoring and managing adverse effects when prescribing Abemaciclib + ET and Dalpiciclib + ET.