Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study evaluated atrial arrhythmia incidence in HR-positive breast cancer, indicating increased mortality risk from the condition.
Background Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors are increasingly used in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer, yet emerging data suggest potential cardiotoxicity, including atrial arrhythmias (AA). Understanding the incidence and outcomes of AA in this population is essential as indications for CDK4/6 inhibitors expand. Objectives To evaluate the incidence of new-onset AA and associated outcomes in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated at Mayo Clinic from 2015?2024 who received CDK4/6 inhibitors for HR+/HER2- breast cancer. The primary outcome was incidence of AA (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia). Secondary outcomes included cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models were used to assess outcomes and associated risk factors. Results Among 2,782 patients, 59% received palbociclib, 28% abemaciclib, and 14% ribociclib. New-onset AA occurred in 45, with cumulative incidence at 5 years of 2.8%. No significant differences in AA incidence were observed between agents (p=0.44). Multivariate analysis identified age at treatment as the only independent predictor of AA (HR 1.073, p<0.001). Four patients with new-onset AA experienced cerebrovascular events. New-onset AA was associated with increased mortality (HR 1.56, p=0.012). Conclusions CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy was associated with a low but clinically significant risk of new-onset AA, which in turn is associated with increased mortality. There was no significant difference in new-onset AA risk between different individual CDK4/6 inhibitor agents. Prospective studies are needed to define mechanisms and guide monitoring strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: