Skip to main content
Download PDF

CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, and HDAC inhibitors as second-line treatments for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BMC Cancer volume 23, Article number: 805 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This study sought to compare the benefits and safety of agents including Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors as second-line treatments for these patients by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Methods

The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized trials comparing CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, or HDAC inhibitors vs. placebo with the addition of exemestane or fulvestrant as second-line treatments in patients with HR + advanced breast cancer up to December 16, 2021. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and grade 3–4 adverse drug events (ADEs). The present study was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA statements. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model.

Results

Seventeen studies with a total of 9,100 participants were included in the current study. Compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, PFS was significantly improved by CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant, mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant, mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane, and PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant, but not HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane. While mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was the best regimen (SUCRA value 89.5%), the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane regimen induced more severe adverse events (SAEs) than the HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane regimen [OR, 95% CI: 2.40 (1.40–4.10)].

Conclusion

mTOR inhibitor and CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens demonstrated superior clinical efficacy and comparable safety profiles as second-line treatment in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In 2020, an estimated 2.3 million cases of breast cancer were newly diagnosed worldwide, accounting for approximately 25% of female malignant tumors and overtaking lung cancer as the most common malignancy [1]. Among these breast cancer cases, hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumors are the predominant subtype, affecting more than 75% of all cases [2]. In recent years, the accumulation of clinical evidence has changed the treatment mode of HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer from endocrine therapy to endocrine therapy combined with targeted therapies as the first-line treatment [3]. However, endocrine monotherapy is still considered the standard and used for the first-line treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in many cases [4] because of various factors, such as treatment concepts, the accessibility of pharmaceuticals, and economic conditions. However, nearly all patients acquire resistance to therapy [5], and the need for second-line therapies that can potentially improve the prognosis of patients with the onset of endocrine resistance is urgent.

The cyclin D–cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6–retinoblastoma pathway is frequently dysregulated in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer [6] and is implicated in resistance to endocrine monotherapy [7]. Several phase 3 trials have demonstrated the utility of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor, including ribociclib, palbociclib, abemaciclib and dalpiciclib, with endocrine therapy as a second-line treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer [8,9,10,11,12,13]. In addition, aberrant signaling through the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)–mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway also plays a critical role in endocrine resistance [14], which can be attenuated by PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, such as alpelisib and everolimus. Epigenetic modification alters gene expression and contributes to endocrine therapy resistance, which may be reversed by epigenetic modifiers, such as histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors [15,16,17]. In recent decades, both PI3K/mTOR inhibitors and HDAC inhibitors (chidamide and entinostat) have shown clinical benefits as second-line treatments in clinical trials at the onset of endocrine resistance [18,19,20].

However, these agents have not been directly compared, which makes it difficult to provide information for the selection of treatment regimens in clinical practice. Thus, the present study sought to clarify this issue by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the benefits of CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, and HDAC inhibitors as second-line treatments in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer based on clinical outcomes.

Methods

Data sources

An electronic search of the PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/), EMBASE (http://store.elsevier.com/embase) and Cochrane Library CENTRAL (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/) databases was performed for studies published up to December 16, 2021. Search terms were defined considering participants (“advanced” AND “hormone receptor-positive” AND “breast cancer”) and interventions (“hormone therapy” OR “CDK4/6” OR “CDK4”, “CDK6” OR “PI3K” OR “mTOR” OR “HDAC”) to guarantee the high sensitivity of the electronic search and were further restricted to clinical trials and studies in humans. We also hand searched the bibliographies of recently published meta-analyses of related reagents [21,22,23]. The full texts of relevant citations from all identified results were inspected and analyzed. From the main search results, relevant references to the inputted key words were also searched and reviewed accordingly. The present study was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Relevant studies were included based on prospectively established inclusion criteria as follows: the studies were in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer; the drugs were employed as second-line treatment; the studies compared CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, or HDAC inhibitors vs. placebo and the addition of exemestane or fulvestrant; the studies were randomized, controlled trials; and the primary publication was in English. For PI3K inhibitors, only studies in patients with PIK3CA-mutated cancer were included.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: the study was an animal experiment, research progress, drug mechanism discussion, medication guidance, scheme interpretation, or systematic evaluation; the literature did not completely report the necessary research methods and results; and the study language was not English. For duplicated reported trials, only the longest report and follow-up data were included. Two independent reviewers read the literature and selected the studies included for the analysis.

Data extraction and quality assessment

A standard data collection form was designed to arrange the extracted data of interest. Information was extracted by two independent reviewers, including study name, published years and journals, follow-up periods, number and age of participants, type and dosage of medication, control agent, and clinical outcomes (PFS, ORR, CBR and safety parameters). The methodological quality of each study was assessed separately. The quality of the data included in the present study was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.

Statistical analysis

Categorical outcomes were reported as numbers, and the odds ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes were calculated for each trial. Heterogeneity for the treatment effects among each selected study was tested with χ2 tests, and the extent of the heterogeneity between studies was assessed with I2. A network meta-analysis with both fixed and random effect models was performed by using Stata with the mvmeta package to assess the treatment effects for the clinical outcomes and the interstudy variances. The network plots were drawn using the network package based on the Stata software. We ranked the treatment regimens according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). The SUCRA was expressed as a percentage, where 100% indicated that a treatment was ensured to be the best, and 0% indicated that a treatment was ensured to be the worst. A higher SUCRA percentage indicated that a treatment had a higher rank among the network treatment regimens [24]. Statistical tests with P < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Characteristics of the included studies

After screening 450 citations (106 from Medline, 143 from Embase, and 201 from Cochrane Library), 17 studies with a total of 9,100 participants were included in the current study (Figs. 1 and 2). The characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 1. Four of 17 trials compared CDK4/6 inhibitors plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone [10, 25,26,27], 4 trials investigated PI3K inhibitors plus fulvestrant [19, 28,29,30], 3 trials investigated mTOR inhibitors plus fulvestrant or exemestane [31,32,33], and 3 trials investigated HDAC inhibitors plus exemestane [20, 34, 35]. The remaining three studies (EFECT, SoFEA and CONFIRM) were designed to compare fulvestrant and exemestane in the network meta-analysis [36,37,38]. Most of the included studies were phase II or III clinical randomized controlled trials. All trials had a low risk of bias. No obvious evidence of publication bias was present based on a funnel plot (Supplemental Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart for the identification of included studies

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Network of the trials included in the analysis. The node size is proportional to the total number of patients in the regimen. The width of each line is proportional to the number of studies comparing the two regimens

Full size image
Table 1 Study characteristics of the trials included in the network analysis
Full size table

Network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis comparing all combinations of individual medications was first performed (Supplement Table 1). Because medications in the same category did not differ, we pooled the data from different ones in the same category into one group in the present study.

The results of indirect comparisons using a network meta-analysis and the ORs are shown in Table 2, providing pairwise comparisons between each reagent in terms of PFS and ORR. For PFS, CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant (OR 3.28, 95% CI: 2.12–5.07), mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant (OR 3.54, 95% CI: 1.35–9.34), mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane (OR 4.39, 95% CI: 1.79–10.81), and PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant (OR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.28–3.54) were superior to fulvestrant alone. Compared with placebo plus exemestane, PFS was significantly improved by the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane and the HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane. In addition, the CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant showed a superior effect compared with the PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.07–2.23), while the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was superior to the HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.25–3.28).

Table 2 Network meta-analysis of CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors and HDAC inhibitors for PFS and ORR
Full size table

Compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, the ORR was significantly improved by CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38–0.69), mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane (OR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.56), and PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36–0.75), but not mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant or HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane. Compared with placebo plus exemestane, the ORR was significantly improved by CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant and mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane. In addition, the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was also superior to the HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane (OR 5.35, 95% CI: 1.61–17.77).

SUCRA rankings

In the network meta-analysis, the rankings of different combination regimens for outcomes in terms of PFS, ORR and CBR were expressed as SUCRA values (Fig. 3; Table 3). For PFS, mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was the best regimen (SUCRA value 89.5%) and CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant was the second optimal regimen (SUCRA value 77.8%), followed by mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant (SUCRA value 77.6%), HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane (SUCRA value 53.8%), and PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant (SUCRA value 49.4%). In terms of ORR, mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was also the best regimen (96.3%), followed by PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant (84.7%), followed by CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant (61.6%), mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant (57.1%), and HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane (40.1%). Regarding CBR, the SUCRA values were 80.3%, 78.8%, 86.1%, 64.5% and 35.3% for mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane, CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant, mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant, PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant and HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane, respectively.

Fig. 3
figure 3

SUCRA ranking of each regimen in the network meta-analysis. (A) PFS; (B) ORR; (C) CBR.

Full size image
Table 3 SUCRA of each combination regimen in the network meta-analysis
Full size table

Adverse effects

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events from the treatments in each trial are summarized in Table 4. The common AEs observed with CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine are neutropenia, leukopenia, diarrhea, anemia, thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia. Notably, neutropenia was the most common AE in all CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine studies. AEs reported in mTOR inhibitors plus endocrine studies include stomatitis, fatigue and asthenia, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and hyperglycemia. PI3K inhibitor combination therapy AEs with an incidence of at least 10% include neutropenia, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil count and hypophosphatemia. For HDAC combination therapy, the reported AEs include neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, decreased neutrophil count and hypophosphatemia. The risks of drug-related severe adverse events (SAEs) were similar among all treatment regimens except for the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane regimen, which induced more SAEs than the HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane regimen (OR 2.40; 95% CI: 1.40–4.10). The withdrawal rates were relatively low in the HDAC inhibitor plus fulvestrant (2.5–15.9%) and mTOR inhibitor plus fulvestrant (9.0-18.8%) groups and high in the PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant (9.5–39%) and HDAC inhibitor plus exemestane (11.0–64.0%) groups.

Table 4 Toxicity profile of treatments in each included trial
Full size table

Discussion

Adding CDK4/6, PI3K, mTOR and HDAC inhibitors to endocrine therapy has proven to be an effective second-line treatment strategy for patients with endocrine resistance. Compared to standard hormone therapies alone, the median progression-free survival nearly doubled and the proportion of patients achieving an overall response significantly improved in all pivotal trials of hormone therapies combined with CDK4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, and PI3K inhibitors [9, 10, 31, 39,40,41,42]. However, direct comparisons of these combinations are lacking, and treatment decisions are difficult to make in real-world practice. Thus, we performed this network meta-analysis to provide more information on therapeutic regimens for clinicians. To our knowledge, this study is the first to indirectly compare the effectiveness of these novel agents in categories using a network meta-analysis. In terms of PFS, the CDK4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant showed a superior effect compared with the PI3K inhibitor plus fulvestrant, and the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was superior to the HDAC inhibitor. In addition, the mTOR inhibitor plus exemestane was also superior to the HDAC inhibitor for ORR. Importantly, the SUCRA values indicated that the combination of mTOR plus exemestane and CDK4/6 plus fluvestrant ranked first and second in a variety of regimens.

One previous network meta-analysis involving six trials with 4,063 patients indirectly compared the efficacy of palbociclib, abemaciclib and everolimus for restoring endocrine sensitivity and demonstrated that the combinations of palbociclib or abemaciclib with fulvestrant showed similar efficacies to everolimus plus exemestane in terms of PFS and ORR [43]. This finding indicates that the efficacies of CDK4/6 inhibition and mTOR blockade are similar. These results are similar to the findings of the present study. Another recently published network meta-analysis that included eight RCTs compared the efficacy and safety of three types of CDK4/6 inhibitors and five types of PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors plus fulvestrant, but this study lacked HDAC inhibitor- and exemestane-based regimens [23]. Nevertheless, this meta-analysis showed that second-line treatment with three CDK4/6 inhibitors showed superior clinical efficacy compared to PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors when combined with fulvestrant. However, our study provided additional information: mTOR inhibitors plus exemestane may achieve better outcomes than both CDK4/6 inhibitors plus fulvestrant and mTOR inhibitors plus fulvestrant.

The adverse effects (AEs) of drugs are also an important factor affecting the clinical choice of treatment. This study summarizes the AE rates of various agents, showing that all combination therapies were associated with a higher incidence of adverse events than endocrine therapy alone. However, further direct comparison of AEs between these combination therapies via RCTs is necessary.

The advantages of the present study are as follows. First, all the trials included in the analysis were well-designed RCTs of high quality with a low risk of bias. Second, the network analysis was performed according to the categories of the novel agents but not individual drugs, which improves the number of studies in each arm and reduces the risk of selection bias. Finally, CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, and HDAC inhibitors were compared for the first time using a network meta-analysis with bridging studies.

One limitation of the present study is that the meta-analysis was not based on individual patient data, potentially influencing the validity of the results. Another limitation is that we could not analyze OS because of a lack of data, especially from EFECT and CONFIRM. In addition, the BELLE-3 study enrolled some patients with mTOR inhibitor resistance, which might affect the consistency of enrolled patients. Of note, the findings we presented were not for direct comparison.

Conclusions

Based on the present network meta-analysis, we can conclude that mTOR inhibitor- and CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens demonstrated superior clinical efficacy and comparable safety profiles as second-line treatment in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer compared to PI3K inhibitors and HDAC inhibitors.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI, Chen VW, Clarke CA, Ries LA, Cronin KA. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014, 106(5).

  3. Burstein HJ, Somerfield MR, Barton DL, Dorris A, Fallowfield LJ, Jain D, Johnston SRD, Korde LA, Litton JK, Macrae ER, et al. Endocrine treatment and targeted therapy for hormone Receptor-Positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-Negative metastatic breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(35):3959–77.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rugo HS, Rumble RB, Macrae E, Barton DL, Connolly HK, Dickler MN, Fallowfield L, Fowble B, Ingle JN, Jahanzeb M, et al. Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(25):3069–103.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rasha F, Sharma M, Pruitt K. Mechanisms of endocrine therapy resistance in breast cancer. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2021;532:111322.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490(7418):61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thangavel C, Dean JL, Ertel A, Knudsen KE, Aldaz CM, Witkiewicz AK, Clarke R, Knudsen ES. Therapeutically activating RB: reestablishing cell cycle control in endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer. Endocrine-related Cancer. 2011;18(3):333–45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Turner NC, Ro J, Andre F, Loi S, Verma S, Iwata H, Harbeck N, Loibl S, Huang Bartlett C, Zhang K, et al. Palbociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(3):209–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, De Laurentiis M, Im SA, Petrakova K, Bianchi GV, Esteva FJ, Martin M, et al. Phase III randomized study of Ribociclib and Fulvestrant in hormone Receptor-Positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-Negative advanced breast Cancer: MONALEESA-3. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2465–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, Sohn J, Inoue K, Pivot X, Burdaeva O, Okera M, Masuda N, Kaufman PA, et al. MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib in Combination with Fulvestrant in Women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast Cancer who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(25):2875–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, Bondarenko I, Im SA, Masuda N, Colleoni M, DeMichele A, Loi S, Verma S, et al. Overall survival with palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1926–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, Sohn J, Inoue K, Pivot X, Burdaeva O, Okera M, Masuda N, Kaufman PA, et al. The Effect of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant on overall survival in hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative breast Cancer that progressed on endocrine Therapy-MONARCH 2: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(1):116–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, De Laurentiis M, Im SA, Petrakova K, Bianchi GV, Esteva FJ, Martin M, et al. Overall survival with Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant in Advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):514–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Miller TW, Balko JM, Arteaga CL. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase and antiestrogen resistance in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(33):4452–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Connolly R, Stearns V. Epigenetics as a therapeutic target in breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2012;17(3–4):191–204.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sabnis GJ, Goloubeva OG, Kazi AA, Shah P, Brodie AH. HDAC inhibitor entinostat restores responsiveness of letrozole-resistant MCF-7Ca xenografts to aromatase inhibitors through modulation of Her-2. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12(12):2804–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fan J, Yin WJ, Lu JS, Wang L, Wu J, Wu FY, Di GH, Shen ZZ, Shao ZM. ER alpha negative breast cancer cells restore response to endocrine therapy by combination treatment with both HDAC inhibitor and DNMT inhibitor. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134(8):883–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hurvitz SA, Andre F, Jiang Z, Shao Z, Mano MS, Neciosup SP, Tseng LM, Zhang Q, Shen K, Liu D, et al. Combination of everolimus with trastuzumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (BOLERO-1): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):816–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. André F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, Campone M, Loibl S, Rugo HS, Iwata H, Conte P, Mayer IA, Kaufman B, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(20):1929–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang Z, Li W, Hu X, Zhang Q, Sun T, Cui S, Wang S, Ouyang Q, Yin Y, Geng C, et al. Tucidinostat plus exemestane for postmenopausal patients with advanced, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (ACE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(6):806–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang T, Feng F, Zhao W, Yao Y, Tian J, Zhou C, Zang C, Liu C, Wang X, Sun C. Comparative efficacy of different targeted therapies plus fulvestrant for advanced breast cancer following progression on prior endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis. Cancer Manage Res. 2018;10:5869–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Han Y, Wang J, Wang Z, Xu B. Comparative efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cancer. 2020;44(6):100606.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leung JH, Leung HWC, Wang SY, Huang SS, Chan ALF. Efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors as second-line treatment in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2021;20(8):949–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Turner NC, Ro J, Andr√© F, Loi S, Verma S, Iwata H, Harbeck N, Loibl S, Huang Bartlett C, Zhang K, et al. Palbociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(3):209–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, De Laurentiis M, Im SA, Petrakova K, Bianchi GV, Esteva FJ, Mart√≠n M, et al. Overall survival with Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant in Advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):514–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu B, Zhang Q, Zhang P, Hu X, Li W, Tong Z, Sun T, Teng Y, Wu X, Ouyang Q, et al. Dalpiciclib or placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a randomized, phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 2021;27(11):1904–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Baselga J, Im SA, Iwata H, Cort√©s J, De Laurentiis M, Jiang Z, Arteaga CL, Jonat W, Clemons M, Ito Y, et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(7):904–16.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Di Leo A, Johnston S, Lee KS, Ciruelos E, L√∏nning PE, Janni W, O’Regan R, Mouret-Reynier MA, Kalev D, Egle D, et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer progressing on or after mTOR inhibition (BELLE-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):87–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Krop IE, Mayer IA, Ganju V, Dickler M, Johnston S, Morales S, Yardley DA, Melichar B, Forero-Torres A, Lee SC, et al. Pictilisib for oestrogen receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (FERGI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):811–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M, Burris HA 3rd, Rugo HS, Sahmoud T, Noguchi S, Gnant M, Pritchard KI, Lebrun F, et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(6):520–9.

  32. Kornblum N, Zhao F, Manola J, Klein P, Ramaswamy B, Brufsky A, Stella PJ, Burnette B, Telli M, Makower DF, et al. Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women with hormone Receptor-Positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-Negative metastatic breast Cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor therapy: results of PrE0102. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(16):1556–63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schmid P, Zaiss M, Harper-Wynne C, Ferreira M, Dubey S, Chan S, Makris A, Nemsadze G, Brunt AM, Kuemmel S, et al. Fulvestrant Plus Vistusertib vs Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus vs fulvestrant alone for women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast Cancer: the MANTA phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(11):1556–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Connolly RM, Zhao F, Miller KD, Lee MJ, Piekarz RL, Smith KL, Brown-Glaberman UA, Winn JS, Faller BA, Onitilo AA, et al. E2112: Randomized Phase III Trial of Endocrine Therapy Plus Entinostat or Placebo in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast Cancer. A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(28):3171–81.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Yardley DA, Ismail-Khan RR, Melichar B, Lichinitser M, Munster PN, Klein PM, Cruickshank S, Miller KD, Lee MJ, Trepel JB. Randomized phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of exemestane with or without entinostat in postmenopausal women with locally recurrent or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing on treatment with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(17):2128–35.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Chia S, Gradishar W, Mauriac L, Bines J, Amant F, Federico M, Fein L, Romieu G, Buzdar A, Robertson JF, et al. Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1664–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnston SR, Kilburn LS, Ellis P, Dodwell D, Cameron D, Hayward L, Im YH, Braybrooke JP, Brunt AM, Cheung KL, et al. Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):989–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L, Torres R, Bondarenko IN, Khasanov R, Verhoeven D, Pedrini JL, Smirnova I, Lichinitser MR, et al. Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(30):4594–600.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS, Jones S, Im SA, Gelmon K, Harbeck N, Lipatov ON, Walshe JM, Moulder S, et al. Palbociclib and Letrozole in Advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(20):1925–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, Paluch-Shimon S, Campone M, Blackwell KL, Andre F, Winer EP, et al. Ribociclib as First-Line therapy for HR-Positive, advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1738–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, Sohn J, Paluch-Shimon S, Huober J, Park IH, Tredan O, Chen SC, Manso L, et al. MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3638–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Andre F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, Campone M, Loibl S, Rugo HS, Iwata H, Conte P, Mayer IA, Kaufman B, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-Mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(20):1929–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Huang HW, Huang LS, Xu QN, Wang HB, Li XY, Lin JZ. CDK4/6 inhibition versus mTOR blockade as second-line strategy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis. Medicine. 2019;98(1):e13909.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Major project of Medical Oncology Key Foundation of Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CICAMS-MOMP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, National Cancer Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China

    Danyang Ji, Yang Luo, Jiayu Wang, Shanshan Chen, Bo Lan, Fei Ma, Binghe Xu & Ying Fan

Authors
  1. Danyang Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yang Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiayu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shanshan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bo Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fei Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Binghe Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ying Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YF had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the analysis.Study concept and design: YF.Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data: DJ, YL, JW, SSC, BL, FM, and YF.Drafting of the manuscript: DJ and YL.Critical revision of the manuscript: BHX and YF.Study supervision: BHX.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Binghe Xu or Ying Fan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ji, D., Luo, Y., Wang, J. et al. CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, and HDAC inhibitors as second-line treatments for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 23, 805 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11290-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11290-7

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us