Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713467›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

The likelihood of being helped or harmed as a patient-centred tool to assess cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors clinical impact and safety in metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and sensitivity-analysis.

Luca Mastrantoni, Armando Orlandi, Antonella Palazzo, Giovanna Garufi, Alessandra Fabi, Gennaro Daniele, Diana Giannarelli, Giampaolo Tortora, Emilio Bria

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luca MastrantoniMedical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Armando OrlandiMedical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Antonella PalazzoMedical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Giovanna GarufiMedical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Alessandra FabiPrecision Medicine Breast Unit, Scientific Directorate, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Gennaro DanieleUOC Phase I, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Diana GiannarelliBiostatistic, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giampaolo TortoraMedical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Emilio BriaMedical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In hormone-receptor positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) no randomized comparisons are available between CDK4/6 inhibitors. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the reliability of the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH). Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase and oncological meetings websites were searched to September 13th, 2022. We included phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib in addition to endocrine therapy (ET) compared to placebo in hormone-receptor positive/HER2-negative advanced or mBC. Outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs), dose reductions and discontinuations. Hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences were computed with a random effect model to estimate the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH). LHH was computed as (1/NNT)/(1/NNH). PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022362417. Findings: 2204 records were screened and seven RCTs (4415 patients) were included. A significant PFS benefit was observed in patients treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor compared to placebo (HR 0.549; 0.508-0.594, Interpretation: Palbociclib and ribociclib showed lower LHHs for haematological toxicities and abemaciclib for diarrhea. Palbociclib confirmed to be a manageable drug. The LHH appears to be a reliable synthesis tool for balancing risks and benefits of experimental drugs when head-to-head comparisons are missing. Funding: None.

Indexed as

CDK4/6 inhibitorsLHHMetastatic breast cancerNNHNNT

Identifiers

PMID36713467
PMCPMC9874016
OpenAlexW4318542396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.