Observational studyBMC cancer2026
Patient-reported outcomes of adjuvant therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors for HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Observational study in BMC cancer, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quality of life in patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer (EBC) treated with Ribociclib (RIB) and Abemaciclib (ABE) as adjuvant therapy.
methodsA multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in Chinese patients receiving RIB or ABE as adjuvant therapy for HR+/HER2- EBC. PRO data were collected via an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on the PRO scale for breast cancer patients in China (NCC-BC-A scale), EQ-5D-5 L and safety information of CDK4/6 inhibitors, including six dimensions of physiological function, psychological status, social support, treatment related symptoms, economic dimension and overall self-evaluation. The higher score of the questionnaire, the better quality of life.
resultsBetween Mar 15, and May 12, 2025, 197 patients completed the survey, including 94 patients who received RIB and 103 patients who received ABE. Overall, 195 patients (99%) were female and two (1%) were male. No difference was observed in baseline characteristics such as age, employment status, medical insurance, and concomitant treatment. The total score of the PRO in RIB group was higher than that in ABE group (187.14 ± 17.57 versus(vs.) 180.66 ± 22.26, p = 0.024). In therapeutic domain, the score was significantly higher in RIB group (34.81 ± 5.29 vs. 32.77 ± 5.51, p = 0.009). Patients in RIB group were less affected by the treatment-related symptoms of diarrhea (3.88 ± 0.53 vs. 2.31 ± 1.33, p < 0.001), fatigue (2.29 ± 0.91 vs. 2.00 ± 1.02, p = 0.038) and alopecia (2.94 ± 1.39 vs. 2.49 ± 1.24, p = 0.018). The overall health status score of RIB group was higher (6.67 ± 1.27 vs. 5.83 ± 1.45, p < 0.001).
conclusionHR+HER2- EBC patients who received RIB had a better PRO score than those who received ABE. Patients in RIB group experienced less treatment-related adverse reactions, especially diarrhea, fatigue, and alopecia, and had a lower rate of discontinuation/reduction due to adverse events, a better self-evaluation of their overall health status.
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.