Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41079023›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Efficacy and safety of systemic therapies following progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Roberto Buonaiuto, Mario Fordellone, Aldo Caltavituro, Maria Letizia Cataldo, Carmen Criscitiello, Maria Vittoria Dieci, Matteo Lambertini, Andrea Botticelli, Mario Giuliano, Antonio Giordano and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cancers · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

22 authors.

Roberto BuonaiutoClinical and Translational Oncology, Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Naples, Italy.
Mario FordelloneMedical Statistics Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Aldo CaltavituroClinical and Translational Oncology, Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Naples, Italy.
Maria Letizia CataldoClinical and Translational Oncology, Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Naples, Italy.
Carmen CriscitielloDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Maria Vittoria DieciDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Italy.
Matteo LambertiniDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DIMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Andrea BotticelliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza-University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy.
Mario GiulianoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Antonio GiordanoMedical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Federica MangiacottiDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Angela GriecoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Alessandra LongobardiDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Roberta CaputoDivision of Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Breast and Thoracic Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Martina PagliucaClinical and Translational Oncology, Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Naples, Italy.
Claudio VernieriDepartment of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Luca MalorniTranslational Research Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital of Prato, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Prato, Italy.
Lorenzo GerratanaDepartment of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Grazia ArpinoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Paolo ChiodiniMedical Statistics Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Michelino De LaurentiisDivision of Breast Medical Oncology, Department of Breast and Thoracic Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Carmine De AngelisClinical and Translational Oncology, Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In the absence of head-to-head trials, optimal treatment sequencing following disease progression on a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) remains challenging. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide evidence-based guidance for treatment selection in this setting. Methods: We identified randomized phase II-III trials involving HR+/HER2- mBC patients whose tumors progressed on CDK4/6i-based therapy, published between January 1, 2014 and June 6, 2025 (PROSPERO n° CRD42024604417). Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted from published data and analyzed using a frequentist random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the duration of CDK4/6i treatment and the presence of ESR1 or PI3K/PTEN/AKT pathway alterations. Treatments were compared with conventional ET or chemotherapy and ranked using the P-score metric. Confidence in network estimates was evaluated using the CINeMA framework. Safety data, including grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuation, were descriptively analyzed. Findings: Twenty-eight randomized trials (n = 6544) were included in the NMA. Sapanisertib plus fulvestrant provided the greatest PFS benefit (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.82) but had a high discontinuation rate (>15%). Among the approved therapies, ribociclib plus ET (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.84), capivasertib plus fulvestrant (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75), and elacestrant (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.89) demonstrated superior efficacy. Elacestrant was most effective in patients with Interpretation: Combinations of targeted agents with ET or novel endocrine agents such as oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety profiles in biomarker-selected populations, supporting a shift toward biomarker-driven treatment algorithms. In endocrine-resistant diseases that require chemotherapy, ADCs are the most effective therapeutic option. Funding: We acknowledge financial support under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.1, Call for tender No. 1409 published on 14.9.2022 by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR), funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU - Project Title: Identifying predictive/prognostic biomarkers and mechanisms underlying resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition beyond progression in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer - CUP E53D23020460001 (Project code: P2022FK2J8, ERC panel: LS7, Principal Investigator: Carmine De Angelis). Grant Assignment Decree No. 1369 adopted on 01.09.2023 by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR).

Indexed as

Antibody–drug conjugatesBiomarker-driven therapyCDK4/6 inhibitor resistanceHR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancerNetwork meta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41079023
PMCPMC12514518

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.