Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41591534›Full record

Observational studyBreast cancer research and treatment2026

Second-line treatment strategy following CDK4/6 inhibitors for HR-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: a multicentric, retrospective, observational study.

Olivia Lavigne, François Poumeaud, Thibaut Reverdy, Van Tuat Huynh, Guillaume Roces, Gaulthier Poupin, Maureen Gouillou, Angélique Bobrie, Emma Donadille, Florence Dalenc and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

13 authors.

Olivia LavigneNîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France. olivia.lavigne@chu-nimes.fr.
François PoumeaudOncopole Claudius Régaud, Toulouse, France.
Thibaut ReverdyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL), Lyon, France.
Van Tuat HuynhMedical Oncology Department 1, Hue Central Hospital, Hue City, Vietnam.
Guillaume RocesOncopole Claudius Régaud, Toulouse, France.
Gaulthier PoupinMontpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France.
Maureen GouillouMontpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France.
Angélique BobrieMontpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France.
Emma DonadilleMontpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France.
Florence DalencOncopole Claudius Régaud, Toulouse, France.
William JacotMontpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France.
Julien RobertDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Public Health and Innovation in Methodology (BESPIM), CHU Nîmes, University of Montpellier, Nîmes, France.
Frédéric FiteniNîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe standard first-line treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR +) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer is cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy (ET). Optimal therapy after CDK4/6 inhibitors remains to be determined. We aimed to define the appropriate second-line treatment after CDK4/6 inhibitors in a real-life population.

methodsPatients who had received CDK4/6 inhibitors with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer were included from March 2017 to May 2021 at five French cancer centers.The primary objective was to describe second-line treatment after primary treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors plus AIs.

resultsWe included 381 patients who received CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with AIs as first-line therapy. Patients with progressive disease (N = 165) benefited from a second-line of treatment: 69 (41.8%) were treated with chemotherapy, while 90 (54.6%) received endocrine therapy (ET alone: 59, 35.8%; ET plus targeted therapy: 31, 18.8%).Patients on chemotherapy were younger compared to those receiving ET (p = 0.011). Patients experiencing earlier progression were more likely to benefit from chemotherapy than ET (p = 0.001). Patients with visceral disease at diagnosis were more often treated with chemotherapy. Second-line median PFS was 6.4 months (95% CI [5.0-12.9]) for chemotherapy and 8.4 months (95% CI [5.4-11.7]) for ET ± targeted therapy, with no significant difference (HR 1.08, 95% CI [0.73-1.59], p = 0.70).

conclusionThis French real-world study demonstrates limited progression-free survival benefits across all second-line strategies after CDK4/6 inhibitor progression, highlighting an urgent clinical need for more effective post-progression therapies.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsCyclin-Dependent Kinase 4Protein Kinase InhibitorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAromatase InhibitorsCyclin-Dependent Kinase 6Erb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneAromatase InhibitorsCDK4 protein, humanCDK6 protein, humanCyclin-Dependent Kinase 4Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6ERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesProtein Kinase InhibitorsReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneCDK4/6 inhibitorsEndocrine therapyMetastatic breast cancerStrategy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.