Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29951582›Full record

ReviewNPJ breast cancer2018

Cdk4/6 inhibitors and overall survival: power of first-line trials in metastatic breast cancer.

Marie-Laure Tanguy, Luc Cabel, Fréderique Berger, Jean-Yves Pierga, Alexia Savignoni, Francois-Clement Bidard

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marie-Laure Tanguy1Department of Biometry, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Saint Cloud, France.
Luc Cabel2Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France.
Fréderique Berger1Department of Biometry, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Saint Cloud, France.
Jean-Yves Pierga2Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France.
Alexia Savignoni1Department of Biometry, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Saint Cloud, France.
Francois-Clement Bidard2Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5932-8949
Université Paris Sciences et Lettres · FRUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines · FRDélégation Paris 5 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID29951582
PMCPMC6018749
OpenAlexW2808999070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.