ArticleBMC cancer2026
Efficacy and safety of treatments in HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after CDK4/6 inhibitor progression: a network meta-analysis and scoping review.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering limited therapeutic options and lack of consensus following cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) progression, we evaluated efficacy and safety of available treatments for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- advanced breast cancer patients who progressed after CDK4/6i therapy.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies published between 2015 and 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Eligible treatments included endocrine therapy (ET) with targeted agents, CDK4/6i, oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs), and antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), ET monotherapy, and chemotherapy. Bayesian hierarchical models were applied using a fixed-effects model. Descriptive statistical methods were used to summarize the effect of each treatment. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs).
resultsA total of 16 RCTs (n = 5,076) were included. Due to the absence of closed loops, two small networks formed based on ET monotherapy and chemotherapy. The camizestrant (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32–0.76), ribociclib plus ET (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39–0.84), capivasertib plus ET (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48–0.72), elacestrant (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55–0.89), and abemaciclib plus ET (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57–0.94) showed superior PFS compared to ET monotherapy. Camizestrant, ribociclib plus ET, and capivasertib plus ET demonstrated a significantly better PFS compared with amcenestrant or palbociclib plus ET. ADCs including trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (PFS HR = 0.59, ORR OR = 3.53), sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (PFS HR = 0.63, ORR OR = 1.63), and datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (PFS HR = 0.63, ORR OR = 1.94) demonstrated better efficacy in both PFS and ORR compared with chemotherapy. Descriptive statistical analysis revealed that T-DXd showed superior efficacy in terms of PFS (11.56 months) and ORR(53–57%). The safety profile of each treatment demonstrated distinct AE incidence profiles, though differing monitoring intensities across regimens may affect AE detection rates.
conclusionsMultiple endocrine-based strategies, including oral SERDs, AKT inhibitors combined with ET, and continued CDK4/6 inhibition, demonstrated clinical activity for patients progressing after CDK4/6 inhibitors. ADCs are superior to chemotherapy, with T-DXd showed the highest efficacy regarding PFS and ORR. This analysis provides a structured, evidence-based overview of the current therapeutic landscape for this clinically challenging population, with some limitations in directly comparing endocrine therapies and ADCs within the present analysis framework.
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.