ReviewNPJ breast cancer2018
Cdk4/6 inhibitors and overall survival: power of first-line trials in metastatic breast cancer.
Review in NPJ breast cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overall Survival of CDK4/6-Inhibitor-Based Treatments in Clinically Relevant Subgroups of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds.Oncoimmunology · 2020Pooled it
- CDK4/6 inhibitors in breast cancer therapy: mechanisms of drug resistance and strategies for treatment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The dilemma of selecting a first line CDK4/6 inhibitor for hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2023Article
- Advances in medical treatment of breast cancer in 2022.Cancer innovation · 2023Review
- Landscapes of cellular phenotypic diversity in breast cancer xenografts and their impact on drug response.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Personalized cancer therapy prioritization based on driver alteration co-occurrence patterns.Genome medicine · 2020Article
- A Protracted Course of COVID19 Infection in a Metastatic Breast Cancer Patient During CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- The Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib have been investigated in combination with aromatase inhibitors as first-line therapy for metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2 and MONALEESA-7, MONARCH-3 trials, respectively); pivotal trials led to absolute median progression-free survival (PFS) gain of about 15 months. We aimed to estimate, for each trial, the statistical power to demonstrate a significant gain in overall survival (OS). Power was calculated with Freedman's formula. Given the allocation ratio and the number of events, power was computed as a function of hazard ratio. We focused on four specific hazard ratio values (0.94, 0.89, 0.81, and 0.77), which are estimated to correspond to absolute 3, 6, 12, and 15 months gain in OS, respectively. For these calculations, the type I error rate was stated at 5% with a two-sided test, and we assumed that the risk of death was constant over time. PALOMA-2 and MONALEESA trials have an almost similar power despite different allocation ratios, while MONARCH-3 has a more limited power. Overall, the power of the four trials to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in OS is less than 70% if the prolongation in median OS is ≤12 months, whatever the OS data maturity. This analysis shows that OS results are jeopardized by limited powers, and a meta-analysis might be required to demonstrate OS benefit. Conversely, if a significant OS improvement is observed in some but not at all trials, this discrepancy might be more attributable to chance than to a truly different drug efficacy.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.