Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34764640›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021

Treatment Experiences with CDK4&6 Inhibitors Among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Judith J Stephenson, Jonathon Colby Gable, Rebekah Zincavage, Gregory L Price, Collin Churchill, Emily Zhu, Keri Stenger, Mukul Singhal, Bal Nepal, Michael Grabner and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Exploring the real-world experience of abemaciclib treatment for HR +, HER2 - metastatic breast cancer-a qualitative analysis of the IMPACTOR study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Judith J StephensonHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2747-935X
Jonathon Colby GableEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Rebekah ZincavageHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Gregory L PriceEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8968-1951
Collin ChurchillEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Emily ZhuEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Keri StengerEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9980-6722
Mukul SinghalHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Bal NepalHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Michael GrabnerHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6521-1007
Michael J FischAIM Specialty Health, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5312-403X
David DebonoAnthem, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4787-5862
Amy R GeschwenderSWOG Cancer Research Network, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Gebra Cuyun CarterEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6549-0069
Eli Lilly (United States) · USWilmington University · USAnthem (United States) · USSWOG Cancer Research Network · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo describe patients' perspectives on the use of and potential challenges and barriers with adherence/persistence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4&6i's) to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

methodsThis qualitative study consisted of 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with MBC in the US who were either current or recent CDK4&6i users, identified from administrative claims of survey-eligible commercial and Medicare Advantage patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between November 1, 2018 and November 1, 2019. Patients were recruited by email and/or mailed letter. The 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted by a trained facilitator using a study-developed interview discussion guide that included topics impacting treatment choice and adherence/persistence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.

resultsAll 462 eligible patients were sent a recruitment email and/or letter to which 36 patients responded, consented to participate, and met study inclusion criteria; 25 patients scheduled interviews, and 24 completed them. Study participants were predominately white, non-Hispanic (96%) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Participants reported a largely positive experience and mentioned very few adherence/persistence issues. They further reported appreciating the ease and convenience of oral oncolytics, coped with side effects, had strong medical and social support, and experienced few cost issues.

conclusionThe few adherence/persistence issues reported by participants contrasts with other findings of suboptimal oral oncolytic use. Interview themes indicated several factors that likely contributed to the lack of adherence/persistence issues: trusted relationship with oncologist, belief in importance of medication, positive medication views, strong medical and social support, and minimal personal drug cost. Future research should focus on whether and how much these factors impact adherence/persistence in more diverse populations. If adherence/persistence issues are identified in these populations, then it would be appropriate to study the development of interventions that target factors associated with better adherence/persistence.

Indexed as

adherenceCDK4&6i usersoral oncolyticspatient perspectivepersistencesemi-structured interviews

Identifiers

PMID34764640
PMCPMC8573215
OpenAlexW3209643999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.