SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Efficacy and safety of first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors plus AI therapy for patients with HR +/HER2- advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Applications of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in HR+/HER2, and Personalized Treatment Strategies: A Narrative Review.Oncology research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCDK4/6 inhibitors plus aromatase inhibitors (AI) significantly improve the therapeutic effect of initial treatment for HR + /HER2- advanced breast cancer. However, there is a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials involving the four CDK4/6 inhibitors in current clinical treatments. This article aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the four CDK4/6 inhibitors in previously untreated HR + /HER2- advanced breast cancer for a better clinical medication selection.
methodsWe performed a systematic search on databases published up to May 19, 2024 in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library, and we focused on the data of phase II/III trials that met inclusion criteria. Pooled data on progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), all adverse events (AE), and 3/4 adverse events were analyzed using the fixed-effect consistency models.
resultsDalpiciclib plus AI showed the best survival benefit in PFS (SUCRA value 77.9%) for all patients. In terms of ORR and CBR, Abemaciclib plus AI were ranked the best benefit (89.3% and 68.9%, respectively). Furthermore, Abemaciclib plus AI was ranked at the top for prolonging PFS in majority of the subgroups. In terms of AEs and grade 3/4 AEs, dalpiciclib plus AI had the greatest probability (91.3% and 99.8%). Ribociclib plus AI had lowest adverse events (29.3%), and grade 3/4 adverse events of abemaciclib plus AI were the least (26.2%).
conclusionThere was no statistically significant difference in PFS among the four CDK4/6 inhibitors. Dalpiciclib has the best therapeutic effect in PFS. Meanwhile, dalpiciclib has the highest risk of adverse events and the 3/4 adverse events incidence compared with the others.
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.