← The Absolute Effect
Breast Cancer · Medical · Advanced / Metastatic

BOLERO-6

After nonsteroidal aromatase-inhibitor progression in HR-positive advanced breast cancer, how does everolimus–exemestane compare with everolimus alone or capecitabine?

Trial design and population

Population

309 postmenopausal women with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer progressing during or after letrozole or anastrozole.

Intervention vs comparator

Everolimus 10 mg daily plus exemestane 25 mg daily vs everolimus alone vs capecitabine.

Sample size

309

Primary endpoint

PFS; exploratory phase II comparison

Key results

Investigator-assessed median PFS was approximately 8.4 months with everolimus–exemestane and 9.6 months with capecitabine; the phase II study was exploratory and not designed to establish definitive superiority/non-inferiority across all arms.

Source-reported outcome visualization

Median PFS (exploratory) · Investigator assessment

Everolimus + exemestane
8.4 months
Capecitabine
9.6 months

Source-reported endpoint and unit; median survival is not converted into an NNT.

Absolute Effect

Do not infer NNT or definitive benefit from cross-arm median differences in this exploratory phase II study.

NNT: Not quantifiable; exploratory comparison. Endpoint/time horizon are stated above; do not convert median survival differences into NNT.

NNH: Not quantifiable. Everolimus arms had stomatitis, rash, metabolic effects and pneumonitis; capecitabine had hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea. Toxicity profiles differ.

Safety and treatment burden

Everolimus arms had stomatitis, rash, metabolic effects and pneumonitis; capecitabine had hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea. Toxicity profiles differ.

Follow-up, maturity and limitations

Phase II comparative study.

Small exploratory design; not powered to establish equivalence. Confirm assessment method when quoting PFS estimates.

Clinical interpretation

BOLERO-6 is an exploratory comparison and does not establish definitive superiority or equivalence of everolimus-based therapy versus capecitabine.

Current-practice context · reviewed 20 October 2026

Historical evidence is separated from current sequencing. Confirm local regulatory status, current guidelines, biomarkers, prior therapies and patient-specific contraindications before applying these results. Newer treatments may have changed the preferred sequence; where NNT/NNH cannot be defensibly quantified, no surrogate calculation is made.

Primary and authoritative sources

Krop IE, et al. BOLERO-6. Lancet Oncol. 2016. Source ↗
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01783444 Source ↗