Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31717791›Full record

ArticleCancers2019

Should All Patients With HR-Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Receive CDK 4/6 Inhibitor As First-Line Based Therapy? A Network Meta-Analysis of Data from the PALOMA 2, MONALEESA 2, MONALEESA 7, MONARCH 3, FALCON, SWOG and FACT Trials.

Valentina Rossi, Paola Berchialla, Diana Giannarelli, Cecilia Nisticò, Gianluigi Ferretti, Simona Gasparro, Michelangelo Russillo, Giovanna Catania, Leonardo Vigna, Rossella Letizia Mancusi and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Cancers · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Valentina RossiBreast Unit, S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital of Rome, 00152 Rome, Italy.
Paola BerchiallaDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, 10124 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5835-5638
Diana GiannarelliDepartment of Medical Statistics, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Cecilia NisticòDivision of Medical Oncology1, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Gianluigi FerrettiDivision of Medical Oncology1, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Simona GasparroDivision of Medical Oncology1, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Michelangelo RussilloDivision of Medical Oncology1, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Giovanna CataniaDivision of Medical Oncology1, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Leonardo VignaBreast Unit, S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital of Rome, 00152 Rome, Italy.
Rossella Letizia MancusiDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University Tor Vergata of Rome, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Emilio BriaComprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Filippo MontemurroDirezione Day Hospital Oncologico Multidisciplinare, Istituto di Candiolo, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4231-2291
Francesco CognettiUniversità La Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Alessandra FabiDivision of Medical Oncology1, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6320-2609
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITCarlo Forlanini Hospital · ITCandiolo Cancer Institute · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

methodsA network meta-analysis (NMA) using the Bayesian hierarchical arm-based model, which provides the estimates for various effect sizes, were computed.

resultsFirst-line treatment options in HR+/HER2- MBC, including CDK 4/6 inhibitors combined with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) or fulvestrant (F), showed a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison with AI monotherapy, with a total of 26% progression risk reduction. In the indirect comparison across the three classes of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and F endocrine-based therapies, the first strategy resulted in longer PFS, regardless of specific CDK 4/6 inhibitor (HR: 0.68; 95% CrI: 0.53-0.87 for palbociclib + AI, HR: 0.65; 95% CrI: 0.53-0.79 for ribociclib + AI, HR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.47-0.86 for abemaciclib + AI) and patient's characteristics. Longer PFS was also found in patients with bone-only and soft tissues limited disease treated with CDK 4/6 inhibitors.

conclusionsCDK 4/6 inhibitors have similar efficacy when associated with an AI in the first-line treatment of HR+ MBC, and are superior to either F or AI monotherapy, regardless of any other patients or tumor characteristics.

Indexed as

abemaciclibaromatase inhibitorsfulvestrantmetastatic breast cancerpalbociclibribociclib

Identifiers

PMID31717791
PMCPMC6896062
OpenAlexW2981795130

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.