Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
First- vs second-line CDK 4/6 inhibitor use for patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth-factor receptor-2 negative, metastatic breast cancer in the real world setting.
Kimmick, Gretchen; Pilehvari, Asal; You, Wen; Bonilla, Gloribel; Anderson, Roger.
Affiliation
  • Kimmick G; Duke University Medical Center/Duke Cancer Institute, DUMC Box 3204, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Gretchen.kimmick@duke.edu.
  • Pilehvari A; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • You W; University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Bonilla G; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Anderson R; University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38922546
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To compare CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) in the first- versus second-line setting for treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2 negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) using real-world evidence.

METHODS:

Patients with HR+, HER2 negative MBC, diagnosed between 2/3/2015 and 11/2/2021 and having ≥ 3 months follow-up were identified from the nationwide electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health de-identified database. Treatment cohorts included (1) first-line ET with a CDK 4/6i (1st-line CDK4/6i) versus (2) first-line ET alone followed by second-line ET with a CDK4/6i (2nd-line CDK4/6i). Differences in baseline characteristics were tested using chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests. Time to third-line therapy, time to start of chemotherapy, and overall survival were compared using Kaplan-Maier method.

RESULTS:

The analysis included 2771 patients (2170 1st-line CDK4/6i and 601 2nd-line CDK4/6i). Patients receiving 1st-line CDK4/6i were younger (75% vs 68% < 75 years old, p = 0.0001), less likely uninsured or not having insurance status documented (10% vs. 13%, p = 0.04), of better performance status (50% vs 43% with ECOG 0, p = 0.03), and more likely to have de novo MBC (36% vs. 24%, p < 0.001). Time to third-line therapy (49 vs 22 months, p < 0.001) and time to chemotherapy (68 vs 41 months, p < 0.001) were longer in those receiving first-line CDK4/6i. Overall survival (54 vs 49 months, p = 0.33) was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION:

Use of CDK4/6i with first-, vs second-, line ET was associated with longer time to receipt of 3rd-line therapy and longer time to receipt of chemotherapy.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States