SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
CDK4/6 inhibitors versus PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of 28 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative evaluation of the efficacy and safety profiles of two types of targeted inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy in ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Breast Cancer: Epidemiology, Molecular Classification, Diagnostics and Evolving Treatment Paradigms.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy of prevention strategies for oral mucositis in breast cancer patients: a network meta-analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Review
- Advances in intratumoral immunotherapy from a neuro-immune-endocrine perspective for breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Nutritional Impact on Breast Cancer in Menopausal and Post-Menopausal Patients Treated with Aromatase Inhibitors.Cancers · 2025Review
- Local Control of Advanced Breast Cancer-Debate in Multidisciplinary Tumor Board.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- β-carboline derivative Z86 attenuates colorectal cancer cell proliferation and migration by directly targeting PI3K.Natural products and bioprospecting · 2024Article
- Targeting PEG10 as a novel therapeutic approach to overcome CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance in breast cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2023Article
- Molecular Mechanisms of Anti-Estrogen Therapy Resistance and Novel Targeted Therapies.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Updated evidence was required to compare the efficacy and safety of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted utilizing data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that contained interventions of CDK4/6 inhibitors or PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were primary outcomes of interest. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess the survival outcomes and safety profiles, respectively. Results: A total of 28 RCTs with 12,129 participants were included. Pooled analysis showed that CDK4/6 inhibitors significantly prolonged PFS than PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors (HR, 0.81; 95% CrI, 0.69-0.94), whereas no significant differences were detected regarding OS. After balancing the treatment lines and metastatic sites, the superiority of CDK4/6 inhibitors only appeared in the visceral and non-visceral subgroups. Among CDK4/6 inhibitors, abemaciclib was significantly better than others in ≥3 grade neutropenia (OR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.01-0.15). The incidence of stomatitis and digestive disorders was different among diverse kinds of PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors. Discrepancies appeared regarding TRAEs of hepatotoxicity, diarrhea, and hyperglycemia among different interventions. Conclusions: CDK4/6 inhibitors showed better efficacy in PFS, but the benefits disappeared when taking treatment line into consideration. Specific and discrepant safety profiles were found in two categories of agents. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022321172.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.