Affiliations 

  • 1 Pharmacy Department, Aman Hospital, Doha, Qatar
  • 2 Pharmacy Department, The National Center for Cancer Care and Research, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • 3 Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
  • 4 School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor, Malaysia
  • 5 Medical Department, The National Center for Cancer Care and Research, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • 6 College of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
Front Oncol, 2023;13:1203684.
PMID: 38162489 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1203684

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Palbociclib and ribociclib are indicated in the first-line treatment of hormonal receptor-positive HER-2 negative (HR+/HER2- negative) advanced breast cancer. Although randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) proved their clinical efficacy, there are no observational studies yet to validate the clinical findings in the real-world. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness and safety profiles of palbociclib and ribociclib in Qatar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on HR+/HER-2-negative stage-IV breast cancer patients receiving palbociclib or ribociclib in the state of Qatar. Clinical data were collected from the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar using Cerner®. Primary outcomes were progression-free-survival (PFS) and overall-survival (OS) generated by Kaplan-Meier curves. Moreover, safety profiles of both two treatments were evaluated.

RESULTS: The data from 108 patients were included in the final analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the palbociclib and ribociclib groups; PFS was 17.85 versus 13.55 months, respectively(p> 0.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two medications, 29.82 versus 31.72 months, respectively(p>0.05). Adverse events were similar between the two groups. Neutropenia was the most common side effect in the study population accounting for 59.3% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, both treatments have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Further research on a larger-scale population and longer follow-up period is recommeneded.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.