Skip to main content
Download PDF

Volume 15 Supplement 10

Optimizing the management of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the era of PARP inhibitors—proceedings from breast cancer expert group meeting

Optimizing treatment selection, and sequencing decisions for Management of HR-Positive, HER2-Negative advanced breast cancer – Proceedings from breast cancer expert group meeting

BMC Proceedings volume 15, Article number: 15 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The therapeutic landscape of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) has evolved considerably with the introduction of newer targeted agents and their combinations with endocrine therapies. In this scenario, optimizing treatment selection and sequencing is daunting for clinicians. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence-based answers to key clinical questions on treatment selection and sequencing for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC.

Design

A panel of nine key opinion leaders from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Moscow, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and UAE convened in October 2018. They reviewed the literature and formulated answers to clinical questions on optimizing the management of HR + HER2 − mBC.

Results

Evidence-based answers were formulated for: (1) optimal initial treatment choice; (2) ovarian function suppression, optimal endocrine partner, and role of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors (in premenopausal women); (3) better first-line standard of care than aromatase inhibitors; (4) preferred second-line treatment; (5) treatment of oligometastatic disease; (6) factors influencing first-line single-agent endocrine therapy choice; (7) influence of endocrine resistance on treatment selection; (8) optimal maintenance regimen in visceral crisis; and (9) need for a breast cancer registry for patients with HR + HER2 − mBC. The panel also proposed a treatment-sequencing algorithm for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC.

Conclusion

The current article will serve as a comprehensive guide for optimizing the management of HR + HER2 − mBC. The proposed breast cancer registry will help identify unmet needs and develop strategic regional policies to help improve access to optimized care for HR + HER2 − mBC.

Background

In 2018, breast cancer was the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide (24.2%) and in about 154 countries; it was also the leading cause of cancer death globally (15%) and in over 100 countries among women [1]. The high mortality rate associated with breast cancer is attributed to the complications resulting from advanced disease. While about 30% of women diagnosed with early breast cancer eventually progress to develop advanced disease, 6% of cases present with de novo metastatic breast cancer (mBC) at initial presentation [2, 3]. The prognosis of mBC is poorer compared to that of localized breast cancer [3].

The main subtypes of breast cancer based on gene profiling include: (1) luminal cell-like tumors; (2) basal cell-like (BCL) tumors; and (3) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing tumors [4]. Based on immunophenotypic characteristics, breast cancer may be divided into: (1) estrogen receptor (ER) + and/or progesterone receptor (PR)+, and HER2− tumors (luminal A); (2) ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2+ or HER2− tumors (luminal B); (3) ER−, PR−, and HER2− tumors (triple-negative); and (4) ER−, PR−, and HER2+ tumors (HER2-overexpressing) [4]. Luminal A breast cancer is the most common subtype [5, 6].

The therapeutic landscape of advanced luminal A (HR + HER2−) breast cancer has evolved dramatically in recent years, with the introduction of several new targeted treatment regimens. With the availability of newer regimens, clinicians are now faced with the challenge of optimizing treatment selection and sequencing for the first and subsequent lines of treatment for HR+ HER2 − mBC.

Rationale and objectives of expert group meeting

Given the high incidence of and emerging evidence on newer treatment regimens for HR + HER2 − mBC, an expert panel of nine key opinion leaders from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Moscow, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and UAE convened in October 2018 in Munich, Germany to: (1) review the current treatment armamentarium; (2) discuss and formulate answers to key clinical questions on optimizing treatment; and (3) examine the feasibility of developing a regional breast cancer registry.

Optimizing treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC: key clinical questions and potential answers

Clinical question 1

What is the optimal choice for the initial treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC—endocrine therapy or chemotherapy?

International mBC guidelines and evidence from Cochrane database analyses recommend endocrine therapy as the preferred first-line option for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC, even in the presence of visceral disease—except in patients with proof of visceral crisis, immediate life-threatening disease or endocrine resistance [7,8,9,10]. Current endocrine therapy regimens for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC include selective ER modulators (tamoxifen), selective ER downregulators (fulvestrant), aromatase inhibitors (AIs) (steroidal AI: exemestane; nonsteroidal AI [NSAI]: letrozole and anastrozole), and combination of endocrine therapies with targeted therapies such as cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib), mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (everolimus) [11] and phosphoinositide-3-kinase, catalytic, alpha-polypeptide (PIK3CA) inhibitors (alpelisib) [12].

Tamoxifen is one of the earliest first-line standards of care for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC [13,14,15]. It has a better safety profile compared to other conventional HR + mBC treatments available, before the introduction of AIs [16, 17]. However, the emergence of clinical evidence supporting the superior efficacy of AIs over tamoxifen for the treatment of HR + mBC (Table 1) led to a shift in the first-line standard of care from tamoxifen to AIs [18,19,20,21,22, 39].

Table 1 Summary of key studies for the first-line treatment of women with HR+, HER2– or unknown HER2 status mBC
Full size table

Other currently available endocrine therapy-based regimens for the first-line treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC include fulvestrant; combination therapy of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus AI/fulvestrant/tamoxifen; combination therapy of everolimus plus AI/fulvestrant; and combination therapy of fulvestrant plus NSAI [7,8,9, 40]. Specifically, (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy are commonly used as a first-line therapy – palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib have shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in combination with endocrine therapy [41]. Further, ribociclib and abemaciclib have also shown overall survival (OS) benefit in combination with endocrine therapy in separate trials [40, 42, 43]. In a meta-analysis of nine RCTs including more than 5000 patients, CDK 4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone were associated with improved PFS (hazards ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50–0.59; p < 0.00001) and OS (HR, 077 95% CI 0.69–0.85; p < 0.00001), but increased risks of neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea [44].

Clinical question 2

What are the recommendations for ovarian function suppression or ablation in premenopausal women with HR + HER2 − mBC? What is the best partner hormonal agent in this setting?

According to American and European guidelines, premenopausal women with HR + mBC should be offered ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or ablation with oophorectomy in combination with endocrine therapy [7, 9]. Endocrine therapy with tamoxifen, ovarian suppression, or ablation alone may also be considered in premenopausal patients with HR + mBC who have not been exposed to prior hormone therapy [7]. However, combination therapy has been found to be significantly superior to GnRH agonist or tamoxifen therapy alone, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS; 9.7 months vs. 6.3 or 5.6 months, respectively, p = 0.03) and overall survival (OS; 3.7 years vs. 2.5 years or 2.9 years, respectively, p = 0.01) [45].

Other preferred first-line single-agent endocrine therapy options in combination with ovarian suppression or ablation for the treatment of premenopausal women with HR + mBC are AIs and fulvestrant [9]. The use of AIs alone without ovarian suppression or ablation is contraindicated in premenopausal women due to a risk of induction of ovulation [7]. However, the combination of AIs plus ovarian suppression has been found to be effective and safe for the first-line treatment of premenopausal women with HR + mBC [46, 47], with a median TTP and duration of clinical benefit of 12 and 24 months, respectively, in initial clinical studies [46]. The combination of AI plus ovarian suppression has also been found to be safe and effective for premenopausal women with HR + mBC refractory to tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or in whom tamoxifen is contraindicated [48]. Fulvestrant is another emerging option for the treatment of premenopausal women with HR+ HER2 − mBC, including those who are refractory to tamoxifen [49, 50].

Clinical question 3

Are CDK4/6 inhibitors a feasible treatment option in premenopausal women with HR + HER2 − mBC?

Emerging evidence from MONALEESA-7, PALOMA-3, and MONARCH-2 supports the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy and ovarian suppression for the first- and second-line treatment of premenopausal women with HR + HER2 − mBC.

MONALEESA-7 is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 672 premenopausal or perimenopausal women with HR + HER2 − mBC with or without prior endocrine therapy or chemotherapy were randomized to receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor (ribociclib) or placebo along with either tamoxifen or NSAI (letrozole or anastrozole), both groups being treated with goserelin [36, 40]. The median PFS in the ribociclib group was significantly higher than that noted in the endocrine therapy plus ovarian suppression group (23.8 vs. 13 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.69; p < 0.0001) [40].

PALOMA-3 is another phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that included both post- (79.3%) and pre−/perimenopausal (20.7%) HR + HER2 − mBC women who had progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy. Eligible patients (n = 521) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive the CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib and fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant; all pre- and perimenopausal patients were also given goserelin [43, 51, 52]. In the final analysis, the median PFS was 9.5 months in the palbociclib group vs. 4.6 months in the fulvestrant group (p < 0.0001) [43]. Palbociclib-based therapy was well tolerated [53].

The third CDK4/6 inhibitor, abemaciclib, has been tested in premenopausal women in second-line settings. In the global, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MONARCH-2 study, 699 post- and pre−/perimenopausal women with HR+ HER2 − mBC, who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy, were randomized to receive in a 2:1 ratio, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (16% pre−/perimenopausal) or fulvestrant plus placebo (18.8% pre−/perimenopausal). Pre−/perimenopausal women received a GnRH agonist [26] The PFS was noted to be significantly higher in the abemaciclib group (16.9 vs. 9.3 months in fulvestrant group; HR, 0.536; 95% CI, 0.445 to 0.645; p < 0.0001) [54].

The mechanism of action of the above three CDK 4/6 inhibitors is directed toward the suppression of RB phosphorylation resulting in a G1 phase arrest, and thus inhibiting cell proliferation [55]. Of the three inhibitors, abemaciclib appears to affect the CDK4 protein, while palbociclib and ribociclib affect both CDK4 and CDK6. Despite similar mechanism of action, the dose limiting toxicities (DLT) differ among these agents, with neutropenia being the DLT for palbociclib, fatigue for abemaciclib, and neutropenia, asymptomatic thrombocytopenia, mucositis, pulmonary embolism, hyponatremia, QTcF, prolongation (> 500 ms), increased creatinine being the DLTs for ribociclib [56]. The most common toxicities of any grade observed in pivotal trials were neutropenia, leukopenia, fatigue and nausea for palbociclib [42, 43], creatinine increase, diarrhea, fatigue, and neutropenia for abemaciclib [24, 54, 57] and neutropenia, nausea, infections, fatigue and diarrhea for ribociclib [28, 35]. All the three inhibitors are given in 4-week cycles with a week-long take off; all are orally administered and undergo metabolism by liver. Palbociclib and ribociclib can be administered once daily, owing to longer half-life, while abemaciclib can be administered twice daily [56].

Clinical question 4

Is there a better first-line standard of care than AIs for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC?

The evolving treatment landscape of HR + HER2 − mBC has paved the way for the following treatment options other than conventional AIs and tamoxifen in the first-line setting.

Fulvestrant

In the phase III FALCON trial, fulvestrant single-agent therapy resulted in a significantly longer PFS vs. anastrozole (16.6 vs. 13.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.797; 95% CI, 0.637–0.999; p = 0.0486) in postmenopausal women with HR+ HER2− de novo mBC. The PFS benefit with fulvestrant was more evident in patients with nonvisceral disease (22.3 vs. 13.8 months with fulvestrant vs. anastrozole; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42–0.84) [23] (Table 1), and was consistent in both Asian and non-Asian patient populations [58]. A recent retrospective analysis (n = 120) and a meta-analysis (n = 3168) also reported similar results, with better efficacy noted for fulvestrant vs. AIs for the treatment of HR + mBC in the first-line setting [59, 60]. In another recent meta-analysis that analyzed the survival benefit of first-line endocrine therapy in visceral vs. nonvisceral HR + mBC, it was noted that fulvestrant had a survival benefit over AIs in patients with nonvisceral disease. Further, the benefits with fulvestrant were noted to be better in HR + mBC patients with nonvisceral vs. visceral disease [61].

For tumors with PIK3CA mutations that have progressed during or after aromatase inhibitors, the addition of PI3K inhibitor, alpelisib, to fulvestrant was associated with improved PFS; mTOR inhibitor everolimus add-on to endocrine therapy has also shown PFS improvements in the endocrine-resistant setting [62].

Fulvestrant + Anastrozole

The results of the FACT and SWOG studies, comparing the combination of fulvestrant plus anastrozole vs. anastrozole for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC in first-line settings, have been conflicting. While FACT revealed no significant TTP benefit with the combination, SWOG revealed significantly superior PFS benefit with the combination (15 months vs. 13.5 months with anastrozole; p = 0.007) [24, 25]. The PFS benefit with the combination in the SWOG study was more evident in patients with no prior adjuvant tamoxifen therapy [25]. From the latest final survival results of the SWOG study, the median OS with the combination was noted to be significantly higher than that with anastrozole-alone therapy (49.8 vs. 42 months, respectively; p = 0.03). The OS benefit was more prominent in patients who had not received prior tamoxifen (Table 1) [26].

CDK4/6 inhibitor + endocrine therapy

Another emerging strategy, with better survival benefits over single-agent endocrine therapy for the first-line treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC, is the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy (AI/fulvestrant/tamoxifen). The phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled studies that assessed the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitor plus NSAI vs. NSAI monotherapy are PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2, MONARCH-3, and MONALEESA-7. While the first three were conducted among postmenopausal women in first-line settings, MONALEESA-7 was conducted among premenopausal women in both first- and second-line settings. The PFS was found to be significantly longer with the combination vs. NSAI monotherapy in all four studies (Table 1) [27, 29,30,31,32,33,34, 36, 56]. However, this combination may not be a suitable first-line option in patients relapsing within 12 months from the end of adjuvant AI therapy [9].While the subgroup analysis of MONARCH-3 revealed a significantly higher PFS benefit with the combination of abemaciclib plus NSAI in patients with liver metastases, PR-negative tumors, high-grade tumors, or shorter treatment-free interval, the PFS benefit was substantially longer with NSAI monotherapy in patients with a performance status of 0 and patients with bone-only disease [63]. On the contrary, the subgroup analysis of PALOMA-2 revealed a substantial PFS benefit with the combination of palbociclib plus letrozole in patients with low disease burden such as nonmeasurable disease, bone-only disease, or single disease site [64].

The phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MONALEESA-3 study assessed the combination of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs. fulvestrant monotherapy in patients with HR + HER2 − mBC in both first- and second-line settings [35]. The median PFS was found to be significantly improved in the ribociclib vs. fulvestrant-alone group (33.6 vs. 19.2 months, respectively in first-line settings) (Table 1) [37].

The combination of CDK4/6 inhibitor plus tamoxifen was evaluated in the MONALEESA-7 trial and found to have significantly improved PFS vs. tamoxifen monotherapy (22.1 vs. 11 months, respectively) (Table 1) [40].

In summary, all three endocrine backbones tested in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors in first-line settings (AI, fulvestrant, and tamoxifen) demonstrated comparable and significant improvement in PFS vs. their respective endocrine single-agent therapies. However, evidence is scant regarding later lines of therapy post CDK4/6 inhibitors. In a retrospective study conducted at a single center in the US, the efficacy of palbociclib and subsequent therapy for HR+, HER2- MBC was investigated [65]. Of 104 patients who experienced progression and underwent subsequent therapy after receiving palbociclib, 12 received exemestane plus everolimus combination therapy. In another single-center retrospective study in the US, treatment after disease progression was investigated in patients who received a CDK4/6 inhibitor as first-line therapy (n = 81) or second-line therapy (n = 55). Ten patients who received a CDK4/6 inhibitor as first-line therapy received everolimus/exemestane after disease progression, and the median time to treatment failure (TTF) in these patients was 13.2 months [66].

Data on specific patient subgroups who may derive larger clinical benefit with the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy over endocrine monotherapy are currently based on subgroup analyses, and are inconclusive to guide further clinical treatment decision-making.

Everolimus + AI/Fulvestrant

In the phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter BOLERO-4 trial, 202 patients with HR + HER2 − mBC were treated in the first-line setting with the mTOR inhibitor, everolimus plus letrozole; the median PFS with the combination was found to be 22 months [38]. Further, an exploratory analysis of the phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled BOLERO-2 trial that assessed the safety and efficacy of this combination vs. exemestane monotherapy in first-line setting also revealed a significant PFS benefit with the combination vs. AI monotherapy [67] (Table 1). The combination of everolimus and fulvestrant significantly prolonged PFS vs. fulvestrant monotherapy (10.3 vs. 5.1 months, respectively, p = 0.02) in patients with HR + HER2 − mBC who developed resistance to AI therapy in the adjuvant setting in the PrE0102 trial [68]. However, considering the limited evidence available in support of everolimus + AI/fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with HR + HER2 − mBC in the first-line setting, caution may be exercised while making clinical decisions on the use of this combination in focus treatment settings.

Clinical question 5

What factors influence the choice of single-agent endocrine therapy for the first-line treatment of patients with HR + HER2 − mBC?

Factors that may influence the selection of endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC in the first-line setting include the type and duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy; time elapsed from the end of adjuvant endocrine therapy; disease burden and site; menopausal status of the patient; and efficacy, safety, and quality of life with the treatment [7, 9].

The expert panel reviewed emerging data on the efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC in the front-line setting, to identify the patient population/s who may not be suited for treatment with these agents and may be better candidates for endocrine monotherapy. Although the incidence of side effects—especially, neutropenia, leukopenia, fatigue, anemia, and thrombocytopenia—was noted to be high in patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy [69], these drugs have been noted to be superior to endocrine monotherapy, regardless of patient or tumor characteristics [70]. Hence, the expert panel discussed and agreed that single-agent endocrine therapy may be considered in the first-line setting for the treatment of the following groups of patients with HR + HER2 − mBC: (1) elderly patients; (2) patients with oligometastatic disease; (3) asymptomatic patients; and (4) endocrine-sensitive patients. Further, the panel opined that there is no age cut-off for the use of single-agent endocrine therapy in the first-line setting. Among the single-agent endocrine therapies available for the first-line treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC (fulvestrant, tamoxifen, or AI), the choice of agent was found to be influenced by availability, accessibility, cost, regulatory approval status, patient preference, the endocrine agent used in the adjuvant setting, disease-free interval, tolerability with the endocrine agent used in the adjuvant setting, and de novo mBC status.

Over the years, testing for hormone receptor status has been standard in the breast cancer evaluation; however, other biomarkers are also evolving. The prognostic value of different biomarkers, such as ESR1, CDK4, and MAP3K1 are under investigation. PIK3CA mutations have a strong prognostic value for treatment with α-selective and β-sparing PI3K inhibitors, especially in advance breast cancer [71]. Phase II/III studies of single-agent PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have shown encouraging progression-free survival results in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated breast cancer [72, 73]. Determining mutation status in this breast cancer subgroup could potentially expand treatment options beyond the current standard options.

Clinical question 6

What is the preferred treatment plan in mBC patients with oligometastatic disease?

According to European guidelines, the treatment of patients with oligometastatic disease should follow a multidisciplinary approach including locoregional treatment [9]. As there is sparse literature on the subject, the expert panel discussed and agreed upon optimizing the treatment plan in these patients on a case-to–case basis. While a treatment approach involving neoadjuvant therapy, surgery, radiation, and adjuvant therapy may be considered for the treatment of young mBC patients with oligometastatic disease, palliative care may be used for the treatment of elderly patients with low-volume metastatic disease. The FDA pooled analysis of the efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors has shown similar efficacy in older women (age 75 or older) compared with their younger women. However, older women were associated with more discontinuations and serious AEs [74]. In a meta-analysis of phase II/III RCTs on ET versus combined strategies, combined ET, especially adding CDK4/6 showed an improvement in PFS as first line treatment in mBC as compared to ET alone [75]. Despite uncertain safety profile, novel agents, such as CDK4/6 inhibitor and mTOR inhibitor, are important in metastatic setting.

Clinical question 7

What is the preferred second-line endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC?

Therapeutic strategy for patients with hormone receptor positive HER2 negative metastatic disease in the second-line setting is based on multiple factors. These include but are not limited to the agents used in the adjuvant and first-line settings; disease-free interval; response to prior hormone therapy; extent of disease; organ function; presence or absence of visceral crisis; endocrine sensitivity; and the presence of a PIK3CA mutation; clinical efficacy and safety of the treatment in the focus setting; patient preference; cost and availability. The use of these factors are in guiding plan of management is illustrated in Fig. 1. Sequential hormonal therapy may be considered only in patients who benefited from prior hormone treatment and have no evidence of immediate life-threatening disease or rapid progression of visceral disease while on adjuvant hormone therapy. Re-initiation of any specific endocrine therapy may be considered only if recurrence with that agent occurred > 12 months from the last treatment. Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors should be considered only in those patients without prior exposure to these agents [7, 9].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Proposed treatment sequencing for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC

Full size image

Endocrine treatment regimens for the management of patients with refractory HR + HER2 − mBC includes single-agent therapy with tamoxifen, steroidal AI, or fulvestrant; or combination therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors plus fulvestrant, everolimus plus steroidal AI/fulvestrant, or tamoxifen plus everolimus [7, 9, 76]. The combination of alpelisib with fulvestrant may also be considered as a treatment option in this patient population [12]. Single-agent abemaciclib may be the treatment of choice beyond the second line or in heavily pretreated cases [77].

Single-agent tamoxifen/steroidal AI/Fulvestrant

Single-agent tamoxifen/steroidal AI/fulvestrant has been reported by international guidelines as one of the options for the second-line treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC [7, 9]. Monotherapy with exemestane or fulvestrant may be considered in HR + mBC patients progressing on NSAI therapy [7]. This recommendation is based on the results of the EFECT trial, which revealed comparable outcomes with exemestane vs. fulvestrant in this setting (TTP with both treatments: 3.7 months) [78].Although a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing fulvestrant 500 mg vs. other therapies for the treatment of HR + mBC following prior endocrine therapy failure reported numerically favorable OS rates with fulvestrant vs. exemestane, additional studies may be needed to derive clinically relevant conclusions [79]. It may be pertinent to mention here that the safety and efficacy of fulvestrant monotherapy in the second-line setting have also been proven in the CONFIRM trial, in which the OS was 26.4 months and PFS 6.5 months with fulvestrant 500-mg regimen (Table 2) [80, 81].

Table 2 Summary of key studies for the second-line management of women with HR+, HER2– or unknown HER2 status mBC
Full size table

CDK4/6 inhibitor + Fulvestrant

The three CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, were evaluated in combination with fulvestrant for the second-line treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC patients in the PALOMA-3, MONARCH-2, and MONALEESA-3 studies, respectively. Significantly superior PFS was noted with the combination vs. fulvestrant monotherapy in all three studies, including in patients with visceral disease [35, 42, 43, 51,52,53]. (Table 2).

Everolimus + Fulvestrant/AI

Evidence in support of everolimus plus fulvestrant combination in second-line setting comes from the PrE0102 study, which highlighted a significantly better PFS with the combination vs. fulvestrant monotherapy among 131 postmenopausal women with HR + HER2 − mBC resistant to AI (10.3 vs. 5.1 months, respectively; p = 0.01) [68] (Table 2). Everolimus has also been evaluated in combination with exemestane in the second-line setting in several randomized controlled trials and studies in real-world settings. The PFS range in these studies with this combination has been noted to be about 4–8 months [38, 82,83,84,85,86, 88] (Table 2). Further, the safety of this combination was evaluated in the European phase IIIb, expanded-access, multicenter, BALLET study conducted among 2131 heavily pretreated patients with HR + HER2 − mBC (26.4% elderly). The safety profile of the combination in BALLET was found to be consistent with that noted for the combination in BOLERO-2 trial, with no new safety signals [89]. This combination has also been noted to have a favorable impact on bone turnover [87]. The clinical benefit of combining everolimus with the NSAI letrozole was evaluated in a phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial conducted among 72 postmenopausal women with recurrent HR + HER2 − mBC. The median PFS with the combination was noted to be about 8.8 months, suggesting everolimus plus letrozole to be a plausible option in the focus second-line settings [90] (Table 2).

Tamoxifen + Everolimus

The tamoxifen plus everolimus (TAMRAD) study revealed a significantly higher CBR, TTP, and OS with everolimus plus tamoxifen combination therapy in second-linesettings vs. tamoxifen alone, but an increased incidenceof side effects [76].

Alpelisib + Fulvestrant

In the randomized, phase 3, SOLAR-1 trial, the PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib (at a dose of 300 mg/day) was evaluated in combination with fulvestrant vs. fulvestrant monotherapy in patients with HR + HER2 − mBC who had received prior endocrine therapy. The investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with alpelisib plus fulvestrant therapy vs. fulvestrant monotherapy (11 vs. 5.7 months, respectively, p < 0.001) (Table 2). Further, in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the overall response was 26.6% with the combination vs. 12.8% with fulvestrant monotherapy; this benefit was more evident in patients with measurable disease (35.7% vs. 16.2%, respectively) [12].

Beyond second-line therapy or in heavily pretreated cases: single-agent Abemaciclib

The phase II, single-arm, open-label MONARCH-1 study evaluated the activity and safety of single-agent abemaciclib in 132 women with refractory HR + HER2 − mBC. At the 12-month final analysis, the objective response rate was 19.7%; the clinical benefit rate was 42.4%; the median PFS was 6.0 months, and the median OS was 17.7 months, thus suggesting abemaciclib single-agent therapy as a promising option for heavily pretreated or refractory patients [77] (Table 2).

Clinical question 8

Is there an OS benefit with CDK4/6 inhibitors for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC?

The use of CDK4/6 inhibitors for the treatment of HR + HER2 − mBC was associated with favorable OS benefit in the PALMOA-3, MONARCH-2, MONALEESA-3, and MONALEESA-7 studies. While fulvestrant was the endocrine partner in the first three studies, the endocrine agent in MONALEESA-7 was NSAI or tamoxifen.

In PALOMA-3, the median OS was found to be longer in the palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs. fulvestrant-alone group, especially in patients with sensitivity to prior endocrine therapy (39.7 versus 29.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; absolute difference, 10.0 months) [36]. In MONARCH-2, a significant OS benefit of 9.4 months was noted in the abemaciclib group (46.7 vs. 37.3 months in fulvestrant group; HR 0.757, 95% CI 0.606 to 0.945; p = 0.0137). The OS benefit was found to be consistent across all subgroups, regardless of menopause status, including in patients with poor prognosis [54]. In MONALEESA-3, the reduction in the relative risk of death with ribociclib was 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92). Overall survival in first-line settings was not reached with ribociclib plus fulvestrant combination vs. 45.1 months with fulvestrant monotherapy (HR 0.700, 95% CI 0.479 to 1.012). In second-line settings, OS was 40.3 months with the combination vs. 32.5 months with fulvestrant monotherapy (HR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.00). The OS benefit with the combination was consistent across all patient subgroups, including in patients with bone-only disease [63].

The OS analysis of MONALEESA-7 revealed a significantly longer OS with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy vs. endocrine therapy alone. The estimated OS at 42 months was 70% in the ribociclib group (95% CI, 63.5 to 76.0) vs. 46.0% in the group receiving endocrine therapy alone, with an estimated 29% lower risk of death (95% CI, 32.0 to 58.9). The overall median OS was not reachable with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy vs. 40.9 months with endocrine therapy alone (HR for death, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; p = 0.00973). In the subgroup of patients who received NSAI as the endocrine partner, the median OS was not reachable with the combination vs. 40.7 months with endocrine therapy alone (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.98). Further, in the subgroup of patients who received tamoxifen as the endocrine therapy partner, the OS with both combination and endocrine therapy alone was not reachable; at 42 months, the estimated OS was 71.2 and 54.5% in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.38) [36].

Clinical question 9

In the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, is there an influence of endocrine resistance on treatment selection in patients with mBC not suitable for single-agent endocrine therapy?

Several mechanisms of endocrine resistance have been implicated in HR + mBC settings, including: (1) mutations in the gene coding for ERα expressed in breast cancer cells, ESR1; (2) amplification of growth receptors, including FGFR1, HER2, EGFR, and IGF1R; (3) activation of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-protein kinase B (AKT)-mTOR pathway; (4) alterations of key cell cycle checkpoints, including hyperphosphorylation of tumor suppressor protein, and amplification/mutation of CDK4; and (5) enhanced levels of basal autophagy. Evidence suggests up to 30% of HR+ mBC may have activating mutations in the ESR1. These may be resistant to AIs but may better respond to ER-targeting therapies, with high dose of tamoxifen/roloxifen or fulvestrant [91, 92].

The use of strategies such as enhanced ER targeting (fulvestrant); increasing target selectivity while decreasing off-target toxicity (CDK4/6 inhibitors); or targeting multiple intracellular pathways and/or multiple points within a pathway (combination therapies) may help overcome endocrine resistance and improve survival rates in the context of HR + mBC [93, 94].

The expert panel discussed and agreed that in the current era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, the upfront use of these drugs or other targeted approaches such as everolimus or alpelisib with well-established survival benefit may help overcome the development of endocrine resistance. While patients with no prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors should be treated upfront with these agents, those who have been treated with prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy should be tested for PIK3CA mutations. Patients with positive PIK3CA mutations should be treated with alpelisib, and those who test negative may be treated with everolimus-based therapy.

Clinical question 10

What is the optimal maintenance regimen in mBC patients with visceral crisis treated with chemotherapy and in complete/partial remission?

The expert panel acknowledged that there were no data to guide the management of patients who present in visceral crisis and are treated with chemotherapy and who achieve complete or partial remission. In the absence of data, the panel agreed that combination endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor would be a preferred choice in mBC patients with visceral crisis treated with chemotherapy and in complete/partial remission. In case of no access to CDK4/6 inhibitor, single-agent endocrine therapy may also be a reasonable choice.

Clinical question 11

Is there a need for a breast cancer registry?

The expert panel discussed and agreed upon the need or a simple, regional, electronic, prospective breast cancer registry for recording patient demographic and tumor biological characteristics, type of treatment, line of treatment, and details of disease progression, to help understand clinical practice patterns and the commitment of clinicians to optimizing the management of HR + HER2 − mBC in various regions. This regional registry will also help in understanding unmet needs and designing educational activities for clinicians and patients, and in improving accessibility to novel treatments. Existing registries are fragmented and attempt to answer focused questions targeted to specific institutional cohorts within a region. The panel agreed there was a need for a broader registry that would strive to address four main questions:

  1. 1.

    Determine practice patterns across different geographical regions

  2. 2.

    Identify factors that drive decision-making processes, including accessibility variations

  3. 3.

    Compare and contrast PFS and OS across geographical regions

  4. 4.

    Use the derived data to develop strategic policies to aid improved access to care

The panel also agreed that the data proposed to be collected by this broader registry may be aligned in accordance to the updated quality indicators developed by the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) [95] to further enhance the robustness of the registry. Genomic profiling tests are now currently available to identify the most suitable treatment [96]. The phase 2 non-randomized trials– MATCH (NCT02465060) and TAPUR (NCT02693535) are designed to determine the precision-based treatment strategy based on molecular profiling. Metastatic Breast Cancer Project and CancerLinQ are in progress real-world data repositories which facilitate scientific findings as well as the development of novel therapeutic strategies for mBC by extensively sharing clinical, genomic, molecular, and patient-reported data.

Proposed sequencing strategies for the management of HR+ HER2− MBC

Based on the reviewed evidence, the expert panel proposed a treatment-sequencing algorithm for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC (Fig. 1). The expert panel also reviewed four selected HR+ HER2 − mBC clinical case scenarios and proposed plausible treatment choices for the management of these scenarios (Table 3).

Table 3 Proposed treatment choices for the management of HR + HER2 − mBC in selected case scenarios
Full size table

Implications for clinical practice / conclusion

In this era of evolving therapeutic landscape of HR + HER2 − mBC, careful selection and sequencing of treatment should be done to improve survival rates and safety outcomes. Factors that influence the optimization of treatment selection and sequencing include disease burden and site; prior adjuvant therapy; response to prior endocrine therapy; disease-free interval; patient profile; menopausal status; and clinical efficacy, safety, and quality of life with the treatment in the focus clinical scenario. Besides, regional factors such as availability, accessibility, cost, regulatory approval status, and patient preference may also influence treatment decisions. Establishing a broader registry establishes the real-world treatment patterns, identify the first-line therapy and other data which enables clinical trials and molecular studies.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Abbreviations

AI:

Aromatase inhibitor

BCL:

Basal cell-like

BCCG:

Breast Cancer Cooperative Group

BOLERO:

The breast cancer trials of oral everolimus

CDK:

Cyclin-dependent kinase

CDK4/6:

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6

CI:

Confidence interval

CONFIRM:

Comparison of faslodex in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer

DLT:

Dose limiting toxicities

DFS:

Disease-free survival

ER:

Estrogen receptor

EFECT:

Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial

EORTC:

European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer

EUSOMA:

European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists

FALCON:

Fulvestrant and AnastrozoLe COmpared in hormonal therapy Naïve advanced breast cancer

FACT:

Fulvestrant and Anastrozole Combination Therapy

FU:

Follow-up

GnRH:

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone

HR:

Hazards ratio

HR:

Hormone receptor

HER:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative

IM:

Intramuscular

mTOR:

Mammalian target of rapamycin

mBC:

Metastatic breast cancer

TTF:

Median time to treatment failure

mos:

Months

NSAI:

Nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor

NS:

Not significant

OD:

Once-daily

ORR:

Objective response rate

OS:

Overall survival

PALOMA:

Palbociclib ongoing trials in the management of breast cancer

PARPi:

PARP inhibitors

PIK3CA:

Phosphoinositide-3-kinase catalytic alpha-polypeptide

PFS:

Progression-free survival

PR:

Progesterone receptor

SWOG:

SouthWest Oncology Group

TAMRAD:

Tamoxifen plus everolimus

TARGET:

Tamoxifen or arimidex randomized group efficacy and tolerability study

TTP:

Time to treatment progression

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Shaughnessy J. Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist. 2005;10(Suppl 3):20–9. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.10-90003-20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cancer Stat Facts: Female breast cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2018.

  4. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, et al. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org. Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(8):1194–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spitale A, Mazzola P, Soldini D, et al. Breast cancer classification according to immunohistochemical markers: Clinicopathologic features and short-term survival analysis in a population-based study from the south of Switzerland. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:628–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI, et al. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju055.

  7. Rugo HS, Rumble RB, Burstein HJ, et al. Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline summary. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(6):583–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.012914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer Version 1. 2019; Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/#site. Accessed 12 Apr 2018.

  9. Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, Papadopoulos E, Aapro M, André F, et al. 4th ESO–ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast Cancer (ABC 4). Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1634–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy192.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilcken N, Hornbuckle J, Ghersi D. Chemotherapy alone versus endocrine therapy alone for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:CD002747.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kümler I, Knoop AS, Jessing CA, et al. Review of hormone-based treatments in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancerfocusing on aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant. ESMO Open. 2016;1(4):e000062. https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2016-000062.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Andre F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(20):1929–40. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1813904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Litherland S, Jackson IM. Antioestrogens in the management of hormone-dependent cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 1988;15(3):183–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-7372(88)90002-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rose C, Mouridsen HT. Endocrine therapy of advanced breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 1988;27(6A):721–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841868809091775.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jaiyesimi IA, Buzdar AU, Decker DA, Hortobagyi GN. Use of tamoxifen for breast cancer: twenty-eight years later. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(2):513–29. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1995.13.2.513.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Muss HB, Case LD, Atkins JN, Bearden JD 3rd, Cooper MR, Cruz JM, et al. Tamoxifen versus high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate as initial endocrine therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer: a Piedmont oncology association study. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(8):1630–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1994.12.8.1630.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chi F, Wu R, Zeng Y, Xing R, Liu Y, Xu Z. Effects of toremifene versus tamoxifen on breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer. 2013;20(2):111–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0430-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y, Pérez-Carrión R, Boni C, Monnier A, et al. Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-ine therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the international Letrozole breast Cancer group. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(10):2596–606. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.10.2596.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y, Pérez-Carrión R, Boni C, Monnier A, et al. Phase III study of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: analysis of survival and update of efficacy from the international Letrozole breast Cancer group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(11):2101–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.04.194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonneterre J, Thürlimann B, Robertson JF, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in 668 postmenopausal women: results of the tamoxifen or Arimidex randomized group efficacy and tolerability study. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(22):3748–57. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.22.3748.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nabholtz JM, Buzdar A, Pollak M, Harwin W, Burton G, Mangalik A, et al. Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results of a north American multicenter randomized trial. Arimidex Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(22):3758–67. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.22.3758.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paridaens RJ, Dirix LY, Beex LV, Nooij M, Cameron DA, Cufer T, et al. Phase III study comparing exemestane with tamoxifen as first-line hormonal treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast Cancer cooperative group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(30):4883–90. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4659.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Robertson JF, Bondarenko IM, Trishkina E, et al. Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10063):2997–3005. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32389-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bergh J, Jönsson PE, Lidbrink EK, Trudeau M, Eiermann W, Brattström D, et al. FACT: an open-label randomized phase III study of fulvestrant and anastrozole in combination compared with anastrozole alone as first-line therapy for patients with receptor-positive postmenopausal breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(16):1919–25. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.38.1095.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, et al. Combination anastrozole and fulvestrant in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):435–44. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1201622.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, et al. Overall survival with fulvestrant plus anastrozole in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(13):1226–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1811714.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS, et al. Palbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(20):1925–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, Paluch-Shimon S, et al. Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(7):1541–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, Paluch-Shimon S, et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1738–48. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1609709.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Shaughnessy J, Petrakova K, Sonke GS, Conte P, Arteaga CL, Cameron DA, et al. Ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone in patients with de novo HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168(1):127–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4518-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sonke GS, Hart LL, Campone M, Erdkamp F, Janni W, Verma S, et al. Ribociclib with letrozole vs letrozole alone in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(3):659–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4523-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, Sohn J, Paluch-Shimon S, Huober J, et al. MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3638–46. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnston S, Martin M, Di Leo A, et al. MONARCH 3 final PFS: a randomized study of abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2019;5(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-018-0097-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Di Leo A, O'Shaughnessy J, Sledge GW Jr, et al. Prognostic characteristics in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer and characterization of abemaciclib efficacy. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018;4:41. Published 2018 Dec 18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-018-0094-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, de Laurentiis M, Im SA, et al. Phase III randomized study of ribociclib and fulvestrant in hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer: MONALEESA-3. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2465–72. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9909.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tripathy D, Im SA, Colleoni M, et al. Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer (MONALEESA-7): A randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:904–15.

  37. Royce M, Bachelot T, Villanueva C, et al. Everolimus plus endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(7):977–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Beck JT, Hortobagyi GN, Campone M, Lebrun F, Deleu I, Rugo HS, et al. Everolimus plus exemestane as first-line therapy in HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer in BOLERO-2. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;143(3):459–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2814-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Polyzos NP, Ioannidis JPA. Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inactivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(18):1285–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Im SA, Lu YS, Bardia A, Harbeck N, Colleoni M, Franke F, et al. Overall survival with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):307–16. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1903765.

  41. Wang L, Gao S, Li D, Ran X, Sheng Z, Wu W, et al. CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy improve overall survival in advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast J. 2020;26(7):1439–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Verma S, Bartlett CH, Schnell P, DeMichele AM, Loi S, Ro J, et al. Palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced metastatic breast cancer: detailed safety analysis from a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phaseIII study (PALOMA-3). Oncologist. 2016;21(10):1165–75. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0097.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Cristofanilli M, Turner NC, Bondarenko I, Ro J, Im SA, Masuda N, et al. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib versus fulvestrant plus placebo for treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(4):425–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00613-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zheng J, Wu J, Wang C, Zhuang S, Chen J, Ye F. Combination cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy versus endocrine monotherapy for hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0233571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233571.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Klijn JG, Beex LV, Mauriac L, van Zijl J, Veyret C, Wildiers J, et al. Combined treatment with buserelin and tamoxifen in premenopausal metastatic breast cancer: a randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(11):903–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.11.903.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cheung KL, Agrawal A, Folkerd E, Dowsett M, Robertson JFR, Winterbottom L. Suppression of ovarian function in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as treatment for advanced breast cancer in pre-menopausal women. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(16):2936–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Carlson RW, Theriault R, Schurman CM, Rivera E, Chung CT, Phan SC, et al. Phase II trial of anastrozole plus goserelin in the treatment of hormone receptor–positive, metastatic carcinoma of the breast in premenopausal women. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3917–21. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.9565.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nishimura R, Anan K, Yamamoto Y, et al. Efficacy of goserelin plus anastrozole in premenopausal women with advanced or recurrent breast cancer refractory to an LH-RH analogue with tamoxifen: results of the JMTO BC08-01 phase II trial. Oncol Rep. 2013;29(5):1707–13. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2013.2312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Tancredi R, Furlanetto J, Loibl S. Endocrine therapy in premenopausal hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth receptor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer: between guidelines and literature. Oncologist. 2018;23(8):974–81. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0077.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim JY, Im SA, Jung KH, Ro J, Sohn J, Kim JH, et al. Fulvestrant plus goserelin versus anastrozole plus goserelin versus goserelin alone for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative tamoxifen-pretreated premenopausal women with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (KCSG BR10-04): a multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised phase II trial (FLAG study). Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Turner NC, Huang Bartlett C, Cristofanilli M. Palbociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1672–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, Bondarenko I, Im SA, Masuda N, et al. Overall survival with palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1926–36. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1810527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, et al. MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2017:JCO2017737585.

  54. Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, Sohn J, Inoue K, Pivot X, et al. The effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant on overall survival in hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer that progressed on endocrine therapy-MONARCH 2: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;6(1):116–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Hamilton E, Infante JR. Targeting CDK4/6 in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;45:129–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.03.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Marra A, Viale G, Curigliano G. Recent advances in triple negative breast cancer: the immunotherapy era. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1326-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Goetz MP, Toi M, Klise S, et al. MONARCH 3: A randomized phase III study of anastrozole or letrozole plus abemaciclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, or placebo in first-line treatment of women with HR+, HER2- locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl; abstr TPS624).

  58. Noguchi S, Ellis MJ, Robertson JFR, Thirlwell J, Fazal M, Shao Z. Progression-free survival results in postmenopausal Asian women: subgroup analysis from a phase III randomized trial of fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON). Breast Cancer. 2018;25(3):356–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-018-0838-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Xie Y, Li Y, Zhang Y, et al. Fulvestrant 500 mg versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer resistant to adjuvant non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in clinical practice: A multicentre retrospective study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;S1526–8209(18):30801–2.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wang J, Xu B, Wang W, Zhai X, Chen X. Efficacy and safety of fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(3):535–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4867-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Robertson JFR, Paridaens R, Bogaerts J, et al. Meta-analyses of visceral vs. non-visceral metastases treated by SERM, AI and SERD agents as 1st line endocrine therapy (ET) for HR+ breast cancer (BC). SABCS. 2018;P4–13:11.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chang DY, Ma WL, Lu YS. Role of Alpelisib in the treatment of PIK3CA-mutated breast Cancer: patient selection and clinical perspectives. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2021;17:193–207. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S251668.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Rugo HS, Finn RS, Diéras V, Ettl J, Lipatov O, Joy AA, et al. Palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line therapy in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer with extended follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174(3):719–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-05125-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, et al. Overall survival with ribociclib plus fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911149.

  65. Xi J, Oza A, Thomas S, Ademuyiwa F, Weilbaecher K, Suresh R, et al. Retrospective analysis of treatment patterns and effectiveness of Palbociclib and subsequent regimens in metastatic breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(2):141–7. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7094.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Giridhar KV, Choong GM, Leon-Ferre RA, et al. Suman and MP Goetz Abstract P6–18-09: Clinical management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after CDK 4/6 inhibitors: A retrospective single-institution study. Cancer Res. 2019;79(4 Supplement):P6–18-09.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kornblum N, Zhao F, Manola J, Klein P, Ramaswamy B, Brufsky A, et al. Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant plus everolimus or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor therapy: results of PrE0102. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(16):1556–63. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.9331.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Guo L, Hu Y, Chen X, Li Q, Wei B, Ma X. Safety and efficacy profile of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in cancer therapy: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Cancer Med. 2019;8(4):1389–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1970.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Rossi V, Berchialla P, Giannarelli D, et al. Should All Patients With HR-Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Receive CDK 4/6 Inhibitor As First-Line Based Therapy? A Network Meta-Analysis of Data from the PALOMA 2, MONALEESA 2, MONALEESA 7, MONARCH 3, FALCON, SWOG and FACT Trials. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(11):1661. Published 2019 Oct 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11111661.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Bachelot T, Bourgier C, Cropet C, Ray-Coquard I, Ferrero JM, Freyer G, et al. Randomized phase II trial of everolimus in combination with tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer with prior exposure to aromatase inhibitors: a GINECO study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(22):2718–24. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.39.0708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schick J, Ritchie RP, Restini C. Breast Cancer Therapeutics and Biomarkers: Past, Present, and Future Approaches. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2021;15:1178223421995854.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Litton JK, Hurvitz SA, Mina LA, et al. Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(11):1526–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(4):558–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Howie LJ, Singh H, Bloomquist E, Wedam S, Amiri-Kordestani L, Tang S, et al. Outcomes of older women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic breast Cancer treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor: an FDA pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(36):3475–83. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.02217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Omarini C, Piacentini F, Sperduti I, Barbolini M, Isca C, Toss A, et al. Combined endocrine approaches vs endocrine therapy alone as first line treatment in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer: to prescribe for the patient or the physician? A meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized clinical trials. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):418. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06933-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Dickler MN, Tolaney SM, Rugo HS, Cortés J, Diéras V, Patt D, et al. MONARCH 1, a phase 2 study of abemaciclib, a CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitor, as a single agent, in patients with refractory HR+/ HER2− metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(17):5218–24. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0754.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Chia S, Gradishar W, Mauriac L, Bines J, Amant F, Federico M, et al. Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after priornonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1664–70. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5822.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Telford C, Jones N, Livings C, Batson S. Network meta-analysis comparing overall survival for fulvestrant 500 mg versus alternative therapies for treatment of postmenopausal, estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following failure on prior endocrine therapy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(3):188–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.02.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L, et al. Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(30):4594–600. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.8415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L, et al. Final overall survival: Fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg in the randomized CONFIRM trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(1):djt337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M, et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(6):520–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Yardley DA, Noguchi S, Pritchard KI, Burris HA 3rd, Baselga J, Gnant M, et al. Everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal patients with HR(+) breast cancer: BOLERO-2 final progression-free survival analysis. Adv Ther. 2013;30(10):870–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-013-0060-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Piccart M, Hortobagyi GN, Campone M, Pritchard KI, Lebrun F, Ito Y, et al. Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: overall survival results from BOLERO-2. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(12):2357–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu456.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Jerusalem G, de Boer RH, Hurvitz S, Yardley DA, Kovalenko E, Ejlertsen B, et al. Everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: the BOLERO-6 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(10):1367–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Tesch H, Stoetzer O, Decker T, Kurbacher CM, Marmé F, Schneeweiss A, et al. Efficacy and safety of everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: results of the single-arm, phase IIIB 4EVER trial. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(4):877–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31738.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Cazzaniga ME, Airoldi M, Arcangeli V, Artale S, Atzori F, Ballerio A, et al. Efficacy and safety of Everolimus and Exemestane in hormone-receptor positive (HR+) human-epidermal-growth-factor negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer patients: new insights beyond clinical trials. The EVA study. Breast. 2017;35:115–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.043.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Safra T, Kaufman B, Kadouri L, Efrat (Ben-Baruch) N, Ryvo L, Nisenbaum B, et al. Everolimus plus letrozole for treatment of patients with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer progressing on endocrine therapy: an open-label, phase II trial. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(2):e197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.09.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Jerusalem G, Mariani G, Ciruelos EM, et al. Safety of everolimus plus exemestane in patients with hormone-receptor–positive,HER2–negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer progressing on prior non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors: primary results of a phase IIIb, open-label, single-arm, expanded access multicentre trial (BALLET). Ann Oncol. 2016;27:1719–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Hadji P, Stoetzer O, Decker T, et al. The impact of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition on bone health in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer receiving everolimus plus exemestane in the phaseIIIb 4EVERtrial. J Bone Oncol. 2018;14:010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Murphy CG, Dickler MN. Endocrine resistance in hormone-responsive breast cancer: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2016;23:R337–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Fribbens C, O'Leary B, Kilburn L. Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(25):2961–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Lei JT, Gou X, Seker S, Ellis MJ. ESR1 alterations and metastasis in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. J Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2019;5:38.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. D’Souza A, Spicer D, Lu J. Overcoming endocrine resistance in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Hematol Oncol. 2018;11:80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Razavi P, Chang MT, Xu G, Bandlamudi C, Ross DS, Vasan N, et al. The genomic landscape of endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancers. Cancer Cell. 2018;34(3):427–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.08.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Biganzoli L, Marotti L, Hart CD, Cataliotti L, Cutuli B, Kühn T, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: an update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:59–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FoundationOne® CDx - P170019/S017. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/foundationoner-cdx-p170019s017. Accessed 17 May 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We also thank BioQuest Solutions for editorial support.

Funding

The medical writing and publication of these proceeding were funded by AstraZeneca.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dubai Health Care City, Consultant Medical Oncologist, Mediclinic City Hospital - North Wing, Dubai, UAE

    Shaheenah Dawood

  2. Head of the Department of antitumor drug therapy, F. VladimirskIy Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute (MONIKI), Moscow, Russia

    Maria Konstantionva

  3. Head, Breast Medical Oncology Team, National Cancer Center Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Rebecca Dent

  4. Department of Oncology, Centro de Educación Médicae Investigaciones Clínicas (CEMIC), Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Florencia Perazzo

  5. Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, South Korea

    Sung-Bae Kim

  6. Centro de Cancer de Mama, Hospital Zambrano Hellion, Tecnologico de Monterrey, San Pedro Garza García, NL, Mexico

    Cynthia Villarreal-Garza

  7. Depto. de Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico city, Mexico

    Cynthia Villarreal-Garza

  8. Head of Oncology, Clínica del Country, Bogotá, Colombia

    Sandra Franco

  9. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Ming-Shen Dai

  10. Centro Paulista de Oncologia (CPO), Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Sergio Simon

Authors
  1. Shaheenah Dawood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Konstantionva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Dent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Florencia Perazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sung-Bae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cynthia Villarreal-Garza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sandra Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ming-Shen Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sergio Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors SD, MK, RD, FP, SK, CV, SF, MD and SS have equally contributed to the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final draft for publication.

Authors’ information

None

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaheenah Dawood.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

Author SD received honoraria from Novartis, BioCon, AstraZeneca, BMS and MSD.

Author MK received grants from Astra Zeneca, Ciba-Geigy AG, GSK, Orion Pharma, Roche, Novartis, and Servier for clinical research, is a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Roche, Novartis, Orion Pfizer, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Orion Pharma, and Eisai and is a member of the Advisory board for Astra Zeneca, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer.

Author RD is on the Advisory Board of AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.

Author FP is on the Advisory Board of Bayer, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Merck Serono, Janssen, and Novartis; and is a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Serono, and Novartis.

Author SK received research funding (institutional) from Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Kyowa-Kirin, and Dongkook Pharma and has a consultant/advisory role at Novartis, Lilly, Enzychem, and ISU ABXIS Co Ltd.

Author CV is an advisory board member of Roche Mexico, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Myriad.

Author SF received clinical research funding from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Abbvie; is an advisory board member of Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and Astra-Zeneca; and is a speaker at events for Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Astra-Zeneca.

Author SDM reports participation in advisory board meetings at Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Novartis; and is a speaker for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Eisai.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dawood, S., Konstantionva, M., Dent, R. et al. Optimizing treatment selection, and sequencing decisions for Management of HR-Positive, HER2-Negative advanced breast cancer – Proceedings from breast cancer expert group meeting. BMC Proc 15 (Suppl 10), 15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-021-00224-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-021-00224-5

Keywords

BMC Proceedings

ISSN: 1753-6561

Contact us