Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
BMC Cancer · October 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Abstract Background Real-world evidence is increasingly interpreted alongside randomized clinical trial evidence in oncology, but reported outcomes may differ because of variation in patient selection, treatment composition, follow-up, ascertainment, documentation, and reporting. We examined whether outcomes differed between randomized trials and real-world studies of CDK4/6 inhibitors. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science through December 2025 for phase 2/3 randomized trials and real-world cohort, registry, or postmarketing studies of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Arm proportions were pooled separately using logit-transformed random-effects models, and between-source differences were assessed using mixed-effects meta-regression. Results Eighty-six studies were included: 31 randomized trials (40 arms; 7464 patients) and 55 real-world studies (101 cohorts; 30 858 patients). Real-world cohorts included older patients and greater first-line and palbociclib use. After aggregate-level mixed-effects meta-regression adjustment, the model-based objective response rate was higher in real-world cohorts than in trial arms (51.8% vs. 36.6%; P =.031). Laboratory-based adverse events did not differ significantly, whereas symptom-based adverse events were consistently lower in real-world cohorts. Adverse event-related discontinuation was similar (10.6% vs. 8.6%; P =.523), whereas AE-related dose reduction was higher in real-world cohorts (50.8% vs. 33.4%; P =.016). Conclusions Reported single-arm outcomes differed between randomized trials and real-world studies, with the largest differences observed for response and symptom-based adverse-event outcomes. These estimates should be interpreted according to endpoint definition, denominator construction, ascertainment, and reporting. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD420261397529.