ArticleMedicine2019
CDK4/6 inhibition versus mTOR blockade as second-line strategy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway expression profiling reveals age- and subtype-specific molecular heterogeneity in the Nigerian breast cancer landscape.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer, what is beyond?Oncology reviews · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors (palbociclib and abemaciclib) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (everolimus) are effective agents for restoring endocrine sensitivity in patients with advanced breast cancer progression on prior aromatase inhibitors. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare these treatments in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR).
methodsThe PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications between January 2000 and June 2018. Treatments were ranked based on a network meta-analysis. Ranking was determined by P-score. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was detected; otherwise, a fixed-effect model was used.
resultsSix trials comprising 4063 patients formed the comparison network. Compared with everolimus plus exemestane, the combinations of palbociclib or abemaciclib with fulvestrant showed similar efficacies in PFS and no differences in ORR. For the CBR, palbociclib demonstrated improvement, while abemaciclib did not. Incidences of severe adverse events did not significantly differ. A total of 29%, 15.9%, and 4% of patients discontinued everolimus, abemaciclib, and palbociclib, respectively, due to toxicity.
conclusionThese results suggest similar efficacies between CDK4/6 inhibition and mTOR blockade; however, CDK4/6 inhibitors were associated with favorable toxicity profiles.
Indexed as
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.