ArticleBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2026
Efficacy of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Plus Aromatase Inhibitor versus Fulvestrant in Chinese Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative (HR+/HER2-) Advanced Breast Cancer.
Article in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The multicenter, real-world study aims to explore the clinical efficacy of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) versus fulvestrant (FUL) in Chinese patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods: We retrospectively collected clinicopathological data of cancer patients receiving CDK4/6i from four cancer centers in China. Clinical benefit rate (CBR), objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between AI- and FUL-combined therapy. Results: A total of 315 patients with HR+/HER2- ABC were qualified. 188 (59.7%) patients received AI+CDK4/6i, and 127 (40.3%) patients received FUL+CDK4/6i therapy. In the overall population, the median PFS was 16.8 months versus 14.9 months for AI+CDK4/6i and FUL+CDK4/6i (p=0.34, HR=0.87, 95% CI=0.64-1.17). ORR (19.7% versus 24.4%, p=0.33) and CBR (69.7% versus 77.2%, p=0.16) were comparable between the two treatment regimens. For patients receiving post-first-line (1L) therapy, CBR for FUL+CDK4/6i therapy was 69.1%, which was significantly higher than 52.6% for AI+CDK4/6i therapy (p=0.04). Among ET-resistant subgroups, FUL+CDK4/6i achieved a higher CBR of 70.1% compared with 56.2% for AI+CDK4/6i (p = 0.008). In other subgroups, including patients receiving 1L CDK4/6i, who had a favorable response to ET, with/without liver metastasis at first relapse, the median PFS, ORR, and CBR showed no statistical difference (all p>0.05). Conclusion: In general, both AI and FUL combinations are effective alternatives, irrespective of the CDK4/6i treatment line, liver metastasis at first relapse, or endocrine sensitivity. Further studies are expected.
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.