Next Article in Journal
Dysregulation of Cytoskeleton Remodeling Drives Invasive Leading Cells Detachment
Next Article in Special Issue
Regulation of Bcl-2 Family Proteins in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer and Their Implications in Endocrine Therapy
Previous Article in Journal
Biomarker Expression in Multifocal Vulvar High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lost but Not Least—Novel Insights into Progesterone Receptor Loss in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 22
10.3390/cancers13225643
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Endocrine Treatment for Breast Cancer Patients Revisited—History, Standard of Care, and Possibilities of Improvement

by
Naiba Nabieva
1,2 and
Peter A. Fasching
1,*
1
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2
Novartis Oncology, Novartis Pharma GmbH, 90429 Nuremberg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(22), 5643; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13225643
Submission received: 13 October 2021 / Revised: 7 November 2021 / Accepted: 9 November 2021 / Published: 11 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Endocrine Basis of Breast Cancer)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and fulvestrant are the main drugs that have been used for decades in the treatment of patients with endocrine-therapy-sensitive breast cancer. Due to the findings of recent studies and the approval of novel substances for the treatment of this patient population, the established standards of endocrine therapy are changing. Considering signaling pathways such as the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or the CDK4/6 pathway, as well as resistance mechanisms and substances analyzed against these, endocrine treatment of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer is on the brink of a new era. This review provides an overview of the history of endocrine treatment, clarifies its role in the present standard of care, and discusses the possibilities of improvement.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Due to the findings of current studies and the approval of novel substances for the therapy of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer patients, the established standards of endocrine treatment are changing. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of the history of endocrine treatment, to clarify its role in the present standard of care, and to discuss the possibilities of improvement. Recent findings: Tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and fulvestrant are the main drugs that have been used for decades in the therapy of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer patients. However, since a relevant number of women suffer at some point from disease recurrence or progression, several novel substances are being investigated to overcome resistance mechanisms by interfering with certain signaling pathways, such as the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or the CDK4/6 pathways. mTOR and CDK4/6 inhibitors were the first drugs approved for this purpose and many more are in development. Summary: Endocrine treatment is one of the best tolerable cancer therapies available. Continuous investigation serves to improve patients’ outcomes and modernize the current standard of care. Considering the resistance mechanisms and substances analyzed against these, endocrine treatment of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer is on the brink of a new era.

1. Introduction

Endocrine treatment (ET) of breast cancer (BC) was one of the first implementations of an individualized treatment of cancer. At the end of the 19th century, Sir George Thomas Beatson first discovered the positive influence of a bilateral oophorectomy on the development of breast cancer lesions in women with advanced disease, and ET was born [1]. Over time, research on antihormonal substances progressed and it was discovered that only patients with an expression of hormone receptors received any benefit from therapy with tamoxifen [2]. The implementation of a test that assesses the expression of hormone receptors and enables an appropriate therapy decision [3] was, besides testing for the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and a subsequent trastuzumab treatment [4], the beginning of individualized therapies for BC patients.
The efficacy of ET was first evaluated in women with advanced breast cancer (aBC). In addition to tamoxifen and the three aromatase inhibitors (AIs) anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane, with fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), there are several ET options available for aBC patients [5,6,7]. While in a metastatic treatment setting the primary objective is to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while maintaining quality of life (QoL) at the same time, the goal of adjuvant ET is to reduce the disease recurrence and mortality rates of hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer (eBC) patients [2,8] with an acceptable risk–benefit ratio. In premenopausal women with eBC and a low risk of disease recurrence, tamoxifen is the preferred adjuvant ET [2,9]; in those with a high risk, the combination of tamoxifen or an AI with ovarian function suppression (OFS) is recommended [10]; and in postmenopausal eBC patients, therapy with an AI is the treatment of choice [10], since it shows superior results regarding disease-free survival (DFS) [8,11,12,13,14,15] and, in some trials, OS as well [8,13,15].
Since a relevant number of women treated with ET suffer at some point from disease recurrence or progression, novel substances are being investigated to overcome resistance mechanisms by interfering with certain signaling pathways and supporting the efficacy of established therapies [16,17].
This review is designed to give an overview on the recent history of ET, to clarify its role in the present therapy of hormone-receptor-positive HER2-negative BC, and to discuss future directions for further improvement.

2. History and the State of the Art of Endocrine Treatment

The beginnings of ET can be dated back to the early 1970s. In the following, the main substances that have been used for decades and still currently build the foundation of any endocrine-based therapy are presented.

2.1. Tamoxifen

When the selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen first showed positive results in the therapy of hormone-receptor-positive aBC, its development gained more attention [18]. In several randomized trials, tamoxifen demonstrated comparable efficacy with megestrol acetate, which was used to treat BC patients previously. However, tamoxifen presented a better side effect profile, which eventually led to the approval of this therapy in the United States in 1977 [19]. Further analyses showed a reduction in the risk of recurrence when tamoxifen was given as an adjuvant treatment. The optimal therapy duration was subject to several subsequent investigations, which showed a significant trend towards a greater effect with longer treatment, so for many years an adjuvant therapy of five years of tamoxifen was recommended [2].
Later, the ATLAS and aTTom trials demonstrated that an extension in treatment from five to up to ten years leads to a further survival benefit [20,21]; such a treatment duration then became an option, especially for premenopausal patients with a high risk of recurrence [10,22]. In these women, additional ovarian function suppression is also recommended [10,22]. The SOFT and TEXT trials showed improved disease-free survival and overall survival, adding OFS to a treatment with tamoxifen alone [23,24,25].

2.2. Aromatase Inhibitors

In the 1970s, investigators also found that estrogen synthesis takes place not only in the ovaries and adrenal glands, but, in postmenopausal women, also in muscle, liver, and adipose tissues by the catalysis of androgens to estrogens through aromatase, an enzyme of the cytochrome P450 family. This knowledge led to the development of the third-generation AIs anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane to reduce estrogen levels in hormone-receptor-positive BC patients [26]. The comparison between AIs and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with aBC demonstrated the superiority of AIs and resulted in their approval and establishment in this treatment setting [5,6,7]. Regarding the adjuvant therapy of postmenopausal women suffering from hormone-receptor-positive eBC and the improvement of DFS, AIs’ effect was later analyzed and found again to be superior compared to tamoxifen, resulting in an extension of the approval [8,11,12,13,14,15]. Decades later, in the FATA-GIM3 as well as in the FACE trials, a difference in efficacy between each AI could not be found [27,28].
According to current results, the optimal therapy duration of AIs seems to be at least five years, but due to an ongoing risk of recurrence after the first five years in patients with high-risk BC, a prolongation for up to 10 years in terms of an extended ET seems to further improve DFS [10,29,30]. Nevertheless, statements regarding the exact duration of the extended treatment are partially contradictory, since there are studies that have shown a non-inferiority of seven to eight years of ET compared to 10 years [31] or even no significant difference at all when comparing five versus ten years of AI therapy [32]. An intermittent approach in the SOLE study, however, did not show superior results compared to continuous AI intake [33]. Furthermore, as with tamoxifen, in younger premenopausal women with a high risk of disease recurrence, a combined treatment with an AI and OFS is feasible. This has been shown to improve DFS, but not OS, compared to tamoxifen and OFS as well as to tamoxifen alone [24,25].

2.3. Fulvestrant

Another option of ET is fulvestrant, the only approved SERD for the therapy of hormone-receptor-positive aBC in postmenopausal women to date, which joined the ET family in the early years of the millennium. Trials investigating the outcomes of patients that received fulvestrant versus an AI demonstrated that it is at least as effective and safe [34], or even superior [35,36]. This is why it was approved and recommended for the therapy of aBC, especially in the first or second treatment line [34,37,38]. Further analyses included the dosage at which its effect on patients’ outcomes is most favorable, and found that fulvestrant given at 500 mg achieves better results than at 250 mg [34,36]; this then became part of the guidelines [37].
Moreover, ET combination strategies are also of interest. The addition of fulvestrant to an AI, for instance, seems to be associated with an OS benefit, but since it results in a higher incidence of relatively serious adverse events (AEs), this combination treatment did not become the standard of care [39].

3. Modern Approaches in Advanced Breast Cancer

Several pathways, resistance mechanisms, and mutations are described in the literature as reasons for disease recurrence or progression. The major pathways include the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT murine thymoma viral oncogene/mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/AKT/mTOR) signaling pathway, as well as the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) cell cycle pathway [16,17]. Figure 1 provides an overview of the main cell proliferation mechanisms.

3.1. PI3K/AKT/mTOR Signaling Pathway

One of the main substances acting within the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is the mTOR inhibitor everolimus. It was the first agent of the inhibitors of this signaling pathway approved for the therapy of hormone-receptor-positive aBC. Everolimus showed an increase in the time to progression when given in combination with the steroidal AI exemestane [40,41], while a significant improvement in OS could not be demonstrated in the BOLERO-2 trial [42]. The dual mTOR inhibitor vistusertib that, in contrast to everolimus, inhibits not only the mTOR complex 1, but also 2, did not result in a PFS benefit when added to fulvestrant [43]. However, in a small study, sirolimus, also an agent from the mTOR inhibitor family, has so far achieved positive results regarding the PFS, comparable to those under everolimus [44].
Another group of agents inhibiting the above-mentioned signaling pathway that were developed to overcome endocrine resistance are PI3K inhibitors. Buparlisib, such a PI3K inhibitor, was analyzed together with fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive aBC. At first showing promising results in preliminary studies, its development was later omitted due to a higher rate of grade three and four AEs, seen in the phase III trials BELLE-2 and -3 [45,46,47]. Another PI3K inhibitor that failed to become standard-of-care treatment due to later-phase results is taselisib. Its investigation within the phase III SANDPIPER study led to the conclusion that the combination of taselisib and fulvestrant has no clinical utility given its safety profile and a modest PFS benefit of two months compared to fulvestrant alone [48]. However, in contrast to the above-mentioned substances, with alpelisib a PI3K inhibitor is available for the PIK3CA-mutated, postmenopausal aBC patient, since it shows a statistically significant benefit regarding PFS as well as a meaningful clinical benefit in OS, with an acceptable safety profile at the same time [49,50,51,52]. Its approval is the result of the SOLAR-1 trial, based on which, in current treatment guidelines, the substance is recommended for the therapy of women as well as men with this specific tumor type [53]. Further trials with different treatment combination strategies including CDK4/6 inhibitors, fulvestrant, and alpelisib or novel PI3K inhibitors, such as inavolisib and copanlisib, or even combined PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, such as gedatolisib for instance, will deliver more information about the efficacy and safety of this drug family [54,55,56].
The last group that interferes with this signaling pathway is AKT inhibitors, which is the only group in this pathway that has no approved drug to date. The main substances under current investigation are ipatasertib and capivasertib. Capivasertib is an AKT inhibitor that demonstrated activity in AKT1-mutant hormone-receptor-positive aBC, not only in combination with fulvestrant but also in terms of a monotherapy [57]. PFS in patients dministered capivasertib and fulvestrant was significantly longer than under fulvestrant with a placebo in the phase II trial FAKTION [58]. Therefore, the substance is currently being investigated in the later-phase trial program CAPItello [59]. Ipatasertib, however, failed to prove efficacy regarding PFS when combined with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the treatment of triple-negative as well as hormone-receptor-positive aBC in the phase III IPATunity130 study [60,61]. Nevertheless, in hormone-sensitive BC patients, research on ipatasertib in combination with fulvestrant and/or a CDK4/6 inhibitor is proceeding [56].

3.2. CDK4/6 Signaling Pathway

In 47 human breast cancer and immortalized cell lines representing the known molecular subgroups of breast cancer, palbociclib was tested and showed a differential effect on those cell lines with an emphasize on hormone-receptor-positive and HER2-amplified ones [62]. On the basis of this effect, the further development of CDK4/6 inhibition started [63,64]. In the past few years, the CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib have been approved and recommended [53] for the treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative aBC on the basis of three large phase III trial programs, PALOMA, MONALEESA, and MONARCH, since all trials show a significant improvement in PFS when combined with an AI or fulvestrant [65,66,67,68,69,70,71] (Table 1). Regarding PFS, CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first and second treatment lines are also superior compared to chemotherapy [72], hence their use increased substantially in the first years after becoming available, while fewer patients started receiving chemotherapy [73,74]. Meanwhile, some of the trials even provided significantly improved OS data, which is an exceptional result in this treatment setting. In the MONARCH-2 trial, for instance, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant significantly prolonged OS in women who had not received chemotherapy and had a maximum of one prior ET for aBC [75]. Under palbociclib and fulvestrant, however, OS was prolonged but did not reach formal statistical significance in the PALOMA-3 trial [76]. There are further results on the efficacy of palbociclib from the PEARL trial, comparing ET with the CDK4/6 inhibitor to chemotherapy. Compared to capecitabine, palbociclib and ET did not demonstrate superiority regarding OS [77]. Besides, in both the study program trials, namely the MONARCH-3 for abemaciclib and PALOMA-2 for palbociclib, any data on OS have not been reported yet and further results are expected. For ribociclib, however, a total of three trials have reported data on OS and show a consistent significant benefit that is independent from its use in the first or second treatment line, pre- or postmenopausal women, or with an AI or fulvestrant as ET partner [78,79,80]. In the MONALEESA-2 study, postmenopausal patients under first-line ribociclib and letrozole achieved a median OS of 63.9 months, the longest OS data reported for aBC to date [78]. Still, the question remains how to treat patients that progress under CDK4/6 inhibition. Novel strategies include, among others, the continuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors through progression as well as triple combinations with PI3K or checkpoint inhibitors [81].

3.3. Selective Estrogen Receptor Downregulation

Besides the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and CDK4/6 signaling pathways, the downregulation of estrogen receptor expression also plays a significant role in the treatment of hormone-receptor-positive BC. As mentioned above, fulvestrant is the only approved SERD for the therapy of postmenopausal aBC patients to date. However, since there is a lack of oral bioavailability of fulvestrant, therefore requiring intramuscular injection of it [83,84], other novel SERDs with the potential of oral bioavailability are being investigated [85,86,87,88,89] (Table 2). A first-in-human study on the SERD AZD9496, for instance, showed an acceptable safety profile and a prolongation of disease stabilization in women with hormone-receptor-positive aBC [90], but its preoperative influence on estrogen receptor expression was not superior to fulvestrant within a recent window of an opportunity trial in eBC [91]. Giredestrant, however, has also been analyzed in a similar treatment setting within the neoadjuvant phase II coopERA trial. Compared to anastrozole, after 2 weeks of giredestrant a greater relative reduction in Ki-67 as well as a greater number of tumors achieving complete cell cycle arrest were observed [92]. Results from the phase I/II AMEERA-1 study on the combination of amcenestrant with palbociclib in postmenopausal women with aBC also showed encouraging response and clinical benefit rates [93]. The EMERALD, however, is the first phase III trial with an oral SERD that could show positive results in aBC patients under elacestrant compared to those under standard of care ET regardless of ESR1 mutations [94].

3.4. Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation

Developed on the basis of germline BRCA1/2 mutations and their role in tumor pathology, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a further therapy option for patients with advanced HER2-negative disease, including both triple-negative and hormone-receptor-positive BC patients, who make up about 50% of all aBC patients [95]. The OlympiAD trial for olaparib [96] and the EMBRACA trial for talazoparib [97] showed an improvement concerning PFS over a chemotherapy of physicians’ choice. However, in both studies a significant influence on OS was not observed [98,99].

4. Adverse Events of and Adherence to Endocrine Treatment

ET is standard in early and advanced therapy settings [10,100,101,102,103,104,105], and therefore the impact of these therapies effects a large number of patients for a long time. The main side effects of clinical interest are musculoskeletal symptoms [106,107], thromboembolic events [108], hot flashes [107], and osteoporosis [109]. While musculoskeletal and vasomotor symptoms usually cease after ET discontinuation, thromboembolic events as well as osteoporosis are side effects with a long-term influence. Additionally, although, in general, ET is one of the best tolerable cancer treatments available, this specific side effect profile often leads to non-compliance [110] and/or non-persistence [111,112,113].
With the advent of combination therapies, new AEs were introduced into ET’s toxicity profile. Under everolimus, for instance, patients may develop stomatitis [41]. In those treated with alpelisib, hyperglycemia and rashes are the most common side effects [52]. Regarding the three CDK4/6 inhibitors, toxicity profiles differ. The rate of grade three/four neutropenia varies depending on the substance, but nevertheless appears in all three CDK4/6 inhibitors. However, there are also substance-specific AEs, such as gastrointestinal toxicities, including diarrhea under abemaciclib, or QTc prolongations under ribociclib [114]. These novel side effect profiles do not seem to affect the QoL in patients with a CDK4/6 inhibitor [115,116,117]; however, they might pose a challenge for treatment management and possibly adherence to these long-term therapies.
Persistence under adjuvant endocrine monotherapy has been investigated in several studies. After one year of letrozole, 13% of eBC patients will already have terminated treatment [118]. Other studies report that almost 50% of women discontinue adjuvant ET with tamoxifen or an AI within the first years of treatment [119]. However, compliance, i.e., whether the intake of the medication is in accordance with a physician’s prescription, and persistence, meaning the intake of the prescribed medication for the recommended duration, both contribute to the patient’s outcome. Studies have shown that patients who do not adhere to the recommended intake and duration of adjuvant ET are more likely to suffer from disease recurrence and have a worse prognosis [111,120]. Regarding terminology, since the definitions of the terms “compliance” and “persistence” vary [111,121,122], this in turn results in difficulties when comparing studies. The term “treatment adherence” is often used in the literature, as in the present study, to cover both [106,111,118].
Several studies have investigated the characteristics of patients who are non-adherent to ET and have tried to determine risk factors, especially in adjuvant therapy [106,111,112,113,118,119,121,123,124,125,126,127], as well as a small number in a metastatic treatment setting [128,129,130].

4.1. Endocrine Treatment Adherence in Early Breast Cancer Patients

In an adjuvant situation, age has been found to be a risk factor for non-adherence, with younger and older women in particular being at the highest risk [118,123,126,127]. Regarding body mass index (BMI), there are contradictory results, since some trials show no influence on therapy adherence [111,112], while in the Evaluate-TM study a low BMI was significantly associated with a higher discontinuation rate [118]. Furthermore, comorbidities are shown to negatively influence persistence [118,123,131], but at the same time there are indications for a higher adherence rate in women with diabetes or depression [119]. The prior performance of radiation and chemotherapy, especially when including a taxane, seems to also be associated with women’s ET adherence, although it is not clear to date whether the influence is positive or negative [112,123,124,125]. Regarding tumor characteristics, there are results that suggest tumor stage and size are risk factors for non-adherence [124,126]. Contrary to other trials that did not confirm tumor grade as a risk factor [123,126], one study describes that a higher tumor grade is associated with a better ET persistence [118]. Treatment-associated risk factors mostly include ET side effects, such as musculoskeletal pain syndrome, vasomotor symptoms, or thromboembolic events as reasons for non-adherence [106,107,110,111,112,113]. While patients with musculoskeletal symptoms, mostly due to an AI therapy, are at the highest risk of non-adherence [106,111,112,113], those with pre-existing pain before the beginning of ET seem to be at an additional risk [113], since these women indicate even higher pain values [132].

4.2. Endocrine Treatment Adherence in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients

According to the literature, which is scarce, the metastatic situation is similar, although one would expect a higher motivation in patients with a life-threatening disease to continue the recommended treatment. Persistence with palliative ET depends not only on age or the number of comorbidities [128], but also on the presence of ET-induced AEs and previous treatment behavior [129,130,133,134].

5. Upcoming Improvements in the Treatment of Early Breast Cancer

The above-mentioned resistance mechanisms play not only a role in the advanced therapy setting, but also for neo-/adjuvantly treated eBC patients. Substances already approved for aBC are now subject to eBC trials.

5.1. CDK4/6 Inhibitors as a Possible New Cornerstone

CDK4/6 inhibitors have been investigated in high- and intermediate-risk eBC patients in studies of one to three years in combination with neo-/adjuvant ET with the aim to enhance the DFS rate (Table 3). However, the addition of one year of palbociclib to adjuvant ET in women with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as in the PenelopeB trial, did not improve DFS [135]. Neither did two years of palbociclib in patients with stage II–III disease in the PALLAS trial [136]. Two years of abemaciclib, in contrast, delivered in the primary outcome analysis of the monarchE trial, where women with node-positive eBC and a high-risk profile received the CDK4/6 inhibitor in addition to ET, positive results. While under ET alone after a median follow-up of 19 months, 89.3% of eBC patients were cancer-free, under abemaciclib it was a total of 92.3% (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.58–0.87; and p = 0.0009) [137]. With 27 months of median follow-up the invasive DFS benefit was maintained (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.59–0.82; and p < 0.0001) [138]. On this basis abemaciclib has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive eBC at a high risk of recurrence and a Ki-67 score of ≥20%. Results from the NATALEE trial with adjuvant ribociclib for a total of three years in high- and intermediate-risk eBC patients [139] are expected in the near future, which will help investigate whether the significant OS benefit seen in the MONALEESA-2/-3/-7 trials for aBC is transferable to the early treatment setting.

5.2. CDK4/6 Inhibitors Instead of Neo-/Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Even more interesting than the adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitors together with ET is the vision of this combination replacing neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy. The phase II CORALLEEN study compared neoadjuvant ET with six cycles of letrozole and ribociclib to four cycles of a chemotherapy regime containing anthracycline and taxane. At the time of surgery, many of the tumors initially classified as luminal B were then measured to be luminal A tumors [140]. Neoadjuvant abemaciclib within the phase II neoMONARCH trial also demonstrated a certain potential of cell cycle arrest and immune activation [141], as did palbociclib in the neoadjuvant phase II trials neoPAL [142] and neoPalAna [143]. Larger phase II trials, such as CARABELA with abemaciclib or Appalaches with palbociclib [56], and the phase III study ADAPTcycle with ribociclib [144] will yield more information about the comparability of chemotherapy with a CDK4/6-inhibitor-based treatment with regard to efficacy and safety.

5.3. Further Approaches

Since the present review focuses on hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative BC, Table 3 provides an overview of the key ongoing trials that include a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the adjuvant treatment of this specific tumor type. However, CDK4/6 inhibitors are also being investigated in several combinational regimes for HER2-positive, HER2-low, or HER2-enriched [145] disease, but this is not the subject of this manuscript.
The role of PI3K inhibitors in eBC remains unclear. LORELEI, a phase II trial, was initiated to investigate the efficacy of taselisib combined with letrozole in the neoadjuvant ET setting. An objective response due to the addition of this PI3K inhibitor was demonstrated, but it was not sufficient enough to be recommended [146]. Alpelisib, in contrast to its efficacy in aBC, did not show any benefit when added to neoadjuvant ET in the NEO-ORB trial [147]. The development of the newer PI3K inhibitors inavolisib, copanlisib, and gedatolisib will reveal more about their potential significance for eBC.
Oral SERDs are also not only the subject of aBC trials but are analyzed in patients with eBC as well (Table 2). The phase III AMEERA-6 study, for instance, evaluates amcenestrant versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal women, with hormone-receptor-positive eBC unable to continue adjuvant AI therapy [148]. Giredestrant is being compared to physicians’ choices of ET in women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative eBC within the phase III lidERA trial [149]. These trials will show whether oral SERDs can become established substances of adjuvant ET.
Moreover, in BRCA-mutated patients with hormone-receptor-positive disease, there is also evidence that PARP inhibitors may enhance ET efficacy through a synergistic effect, since BRCA mutations have been linked to transcriptional function of hormone receptors [150,151]. The OlympiA trial is the first to show a benefit in DFS in women with HER2-negative eBC and a BRCA1/2 mutation receiving one year of adjuvant olaparib. The 3-year DFS of the total population was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (HR 0.58; 99.5% CI 0.41–0.82; and p < 0.001). However, a significant difference in OS rates could not be demonstrated. Looking only at hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative eBC patients who received olaparib for one year in addition to ET, compared to those included after adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of node-positivity (HR 1.36; 95% CI 0.41–4.71), the subgroup of women who were enrolled due to residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy benefitted the most (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.25–1.04) [152]. Particularly in this patient population, combinational treatments might therefore be of interest in the future.
However, to be effective, each therapy requires patients’ adherence, especially in view of the cost–benefit ratio of novel substances and known unsatisfying adherence rates of standard ET. Therefore, to ensure women’s compliance and persistence and to improve their outcome with the help of expensive combinational regimens, the necessity of patients’ understanding of their recurrence risk, compliance programs, and digital health solutions, continuous treatment and side effect monitoring as well as a healthy patient–physician relationship will gain in importance with each novel therapy.

6. Conclusions

ET of BC, in both an early and advanced setting, has existed for several decades, and has consisted of the basic substances tamoxifen, an AI, or fulvestrant. Prolonging overall survival in aBC and now also entering the eBC treatment setting, CDK4/6 inhibitors will be the first novel substances to revolutionize this therapy area over the coming decades. Despite ET adherence rates being in need of improvement, in general it is one of the best tolerable cancer therapies available. Continuous investigation serves to improve patients’ outcomes and modernizes the current standard of care. Considering several recent successes in treatment efficacy, the rapid development of new drugs in the past few years, and their prompt implementation in treatment guidelines, the continuous improvement of ET is already a reality.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.N. and P.A.F.; methodology, N.N. and P.A.F.; investigation, N.N. and P.A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, N.N.; writing—review and editing, N.N. and P.A.F.; visualization, N.N.; supervision, N.N. and P.A.F.; project administration, N.N. and P.A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

N.N. is currently an employee of Novartis and has received travel support from Novartis and TEVA in the past. P.A.F. reports grants from Novartis, BioNTech, and Cepheid, as well as personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Macrogenics, Eisai, and Puma.

References

  1. Beatson, G. On the Treatment of Inoperable Cases of Carcinoma of the Mamma: Suggestions for a New Method of Treatment, with Illustrative Cases. Lancet 1896, 148, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group; Davies, C.; Godwin, J.; Gray, R.; Clarke, M.; Cutter, D.; Darby, S.; McGale, P.; Pan, H.C.; Taylor, C.; et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: Patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011, 378, 771–784. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Hammond, M.E.H.; Hayes, D.F.; Dowsett, M.; Allred, D.C.; Hagerty, K.L.; Badve, S.; Fitzgibbons, P.L.; Francis, G.; Goldstein, N.S.; Hayes, M.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 2784–2795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Slamon, D.J.; Leyland-Jones, B.; Shak, S.; Fuchs, H.; Paton, V.; Bajamonde, A.; Fleming, T.; Eiermann, W.; Wolter, J.; Pegram, M.; et al. Use of Chemotherapy plus a Monoclonal Antibody against HER2 for Metastatic Breast Cancer That Overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 344, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mouridsen, H.; Gershanovich, M.; Sun, Y.; Pérez-Carrión, R.; Boni, C.; Monnier, A.; Apffelstaedt, J.; Smith, R.; Sleeboom, H.P.; Jänicke, F.; et al. Superior Efficacy of Letrozole Versus Tamoxifen as First-Line 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, 2596–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nabholtz, J.; Buzdar, A.; Pollak, M.; Harwin, W.; Burton, G.; Mangalik, A.; Steinberg, M.; Webster, A.; Von Euler, M. Anastrozole Is Superior to Tamoxifen as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women: Results of a North American Multicenter Randomized Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000, 18, 3758–3767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rugo, H.S.; Rumble, R.B.; Macrae, E.; Barton, D.L.; Connolly, H.K.; Dickler, M.N.; Fallowfield, L.; Fowble, B.; Ingle, J.N.; Jahanzeb, M.; et al. Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor–Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 3069–3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group; Dowsett, M.; Forbes, J.F.; Bradley, R.; Ingle, J.; Aihara, T.; Bliss, J.; Boccardo, F.; Coates, A.; Coombes, R.C.; et al. Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: Patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. Lancet 2015, 386, 1341–1352. [Google Scholar]
  9. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2001, CD000486. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ditsch, N.; Kolberg-Liedtke, C.; Friedrich, M.; Jackisch, C.; Albert, U.-S.; Banys-Paluchowski, M.; Bauerfeind, I.; Blohmer, J.-U.; Budach, W.; Dall, P.; et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2021. Breast Care 2021, 16, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baum, M.; Budzar, A.U.; Cuzick, J.; Forbes, J.; Houghton, J.H.; Klijn, J.G.M.; Sahmoud, T. ATAC Trialists’ Group Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: First results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet 2002, 359, 2131–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Thürlimann, B.; Keshaviah, A.; Coates, A.S.; Mouridsen, H.; Mauriac, L.; Forbes, J.F.; Paridaens, R.; Castiglione-Gertsch, M.; Gelber, R.D.; Rabaglio, M.; et al. A Comparison of Letrozole and Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Early Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 2747–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Colleoni, M.; Giobbie-Hurder, A.; Regan, M.M.; Thürlimann, B.; Mouridsen, H.; Mauriac, L.; Forbes, J.F.; Paridaens, R.; Láng, I.; Smith, I.; et al. Analyses Adjusting for Selective Crossover Show Improved Overall Survival with Adjuvant Letrozole Compared with Tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 1117–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Coombes, R.C.; Hall, E.; Gibson, L.J.; Paridaens, R.; Jassem, J.; DeLozier, T.; Jones, S.E.; Alvarez, I.; Bertelli, G.; Ortmann, O.; et al. A Randomized Trial of Exemestane after Two to Three Years of Tamoxifen Therapy in Postmenopausal Women with Primary Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1081–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jonat, W.; Gnant, M.; Boccardo, F.; Kaufmann, M.; Rubagotti, A.; Zuna, I.; Greenwood, M.; Jakesz, R. Effectiveness of switching from adjuvant tamoxifen to anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early-stage breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006, 7, 991–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brufsky, A.M.; Dickler, M.N. Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Exploiting Signaling Pathways Implicated in Endocrine Resistance. Oncologist 2018, 23, 528–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mills, J.N.; Rutkovsky, A.C.; Giordano, A. Mechanisms of resistance in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer: Overcoming resistance to tamoxifen/aromatase inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2018, 41, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cole, M.P.; Jones, C.; Todd, I.D.H. A New Anti-oestrogenic Agent in Late Breast Cancer: An Early Clinical Appraisal of ICI46474. Br. J. Cancer 1971, 25, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jordan, V.C. Tamoxifen: A most unlikely pioneering medicine. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davies, C.; Pan, H.; Godwin, J.; Gray, R.; Arriagada, R.; Raina, V.; Abraham, M.; Alencar, V.H.M.; Badran, A.; Bonfill, X.; et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013, 381, 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gray, R.G.; Rea, D.; Handley, K.; Bowden, S.J.; Perry, P.; Earl, H.M.; Poole, C.J.; Bates, T.; Chetiyawardana, S.; Dewar, J.A.; et al. aTTom: Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years in 6953 women with early breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thomssen, C.; Balic, M.; Harbeck, N.; Gnant, M.S. Gallen/Vienna 2021: A Brief Summary of the Consensus Discussion on Customizing Therapies for Women with Early Breast Cancer. Breast Care 2021, 16, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pagani, O.; Francis, P.; Fleming, G.F.; Walley, B.A.; Viale, G.; Colleoni, M.; Láng, I.; Gómez, H.L.; Tondini, C.; Pinotti, G.; et al. Absolute Improvements in Freedom from Distant Recurrence to Tailor Adjuvant Endocrine Therapies for Premenopausal Women: Results from TEXT and SOFT. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 1293–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Francis, P.A.; Pagani, O.; Fleming, G.F.; Walley, B.A.; Colleoni, M.; Láng, I.; Gómez, H.L.; Tondini, C.A.; Ciruelos, E.; Burstein, H.J.; et al. Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Saha, P.; Regan, M.M.; Pagani, O.; Francis, P.; Walley, B.A.; Ribi, K.; Bernhard, J.; Luo, W.; Gómez, H.L.; Burstein, H.J.; et al. Treatment Efficacy, Adherence, and Quality of Life among Women Younger Than 35 Years in the International Breast Cancer Study Group TEXT and SOFT Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 3113–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Santen, R.J.; Brodie, H.; Simpson, E.R.; Siiteri, P.K.; Brodie, A. History of Aromatase: Saga of an Important Biological Mediator and Therapeutic Target. Endocr. Rev. 2009, 30, 343–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Placido, S.; Gallo, C.; De Laurentiis, M.; Bisagni, G.; Arpino, G.; Sarobba, M.G.; Riccardi, F.; Russo, A.; Del Mastro, L.; Cogoni, A.A.; et al. Adjuvant anastrozole versus exemestane versus letrozole, upfront or after 2 years of tamoxifen, in endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (FATA-GIM3): A randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, I.; Yardley, D.; Burris, H.A.; De Boer, R.; Amadori, D.; McIntyre, K.; Ejlertsen, B.; Gnant, M.; Jonat, W.; Pritchard, K.I.; et al. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Adjuvant Letrozole Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Patients with Hormone Receptor–Positive, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Final Results of the Randomized Phase III Femara Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Goss, P.E.; Ingle, J.N.; Pritchard, K.I.; Robert, N.J.; Muss, H.; Gralow, J.; Gelmon, K.; Whelan, T.; Strasser-Weippl, K.; Rubin, S.; et al. Extending Aromatase-Inhibitor Adjuvant Therapy to 10 Years. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xu, L.; Zhang, Z.; Xiang, Q.; Liu, Q.; Duan, X.; Liu, Y.; Cui, Y. Extended Adjuvant Therapy with Aromatase Inhibitors for Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin. Breast Cancer 2019, 19, e578–e588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Blok, E.J.; Kroep, J.R.; Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, E.; Duijm-de Carpentier, M.; Putter, H.; van den Bosch, J.; Maartense, E.; van Leeuwen-Stok, A.E.; Liefers, G.J.; Nortier, J.W.R.; et al. Optimal Duration of Extended Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Early Breast Cancer; Results of the IDEAL Trial (BOOG 2006-05). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2018, 110, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mamounas, E.P.; Bandos, H.; Lembersky, B.C.; Jeong, J.-H.; Geyer, C.E.; Rastogi, P.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Graham, M.L.; Chia, S.K.; Brufsky, A.M.; et al. Use of letrozole after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer (NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jerusalem, G.; Farah, S.; Courtois, A.; Chirgwin, J.; Aebi, S.; Karlsson, P.; Neven, P.; Hitre, E.; Graas, M.P.; Simoncini, E.; et al. Continuous versus intermittent extended adjuvant letrozole for breast cancer: Final results of randomized phase 3 SOLE (Study of Letrozole Extension) and SOLE Estrogen Substudy. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 1256–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lee, C.I.; Goodwin, A.; Wilcken, N. Fulvestrant for hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 1, CD011093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Xie, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Li, W.; Guan, X.; Zhao, Y.; Gong, C.; Hu, X.; Zhang, J.; et al. Fulvestrant 500 mg Versus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Adjuvant Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitors in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Clin. Breast Cancer 2019, 19, e452–e458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Robertson, J.F.R.; Jiang, Z.; Di Leo, A.; Ohno, S.; Pritchard, K.I.; Ellis, M.; Bradbury, I.; Campbell, C. A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2019, 26, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cardoso, F.; Costa, A.; Norton, L.; Senkus, E.; Aapro, M.; André, F.; Barrios, C.; Bergh, J.; Biganzoli, L.; Blackwell, K.; et al. ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2). Breast 2014, 23, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Maass, N.; Ostermann, H.; Possinger, K.; Klein, P.; Tesch, H.; Mühlenhoff, L.; Bauerschlag, D. ACT-FASTER, a Prospective Cohort Study Exploring Treatment Patterns with Fulvestrant and Exemestane in Postmenopausal Patients with Advanced Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer under Real-Life Conditions in Germany. Breast Care 2019, 14, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Li, M.; Xiong, Y.; Liao, C.; He, Y.; Duan, S.; Yi, F.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, W. Anastrozole plus fulvestrant vs. anastrozole alone for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 180, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Beck, J.T.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Campone, M.; Lebrun, F.; Deleu, I.; Rugo, H.S.; Pistilli, B.; Masuda, N.; Hart, L.; Melichar, B.; et al. Everolimus plus exemestane as first-line therapy in HR(+), HER2(−) advanced breast cancer in BOLERO-2. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2014, 143, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tesch, H.; Stoetzer, O.; Decker, T.; Kurbacher, C.M.; Marmé, F.; Schneeweiss, A.; Mundhenke, C.; Distelrath, A.; Fasching, P.A.; Lux, M.P.; 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, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Piccart, M.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Campone, M.; Pritchard, K.I.; Lebrun, F.; Ito, Y.; Noguchi, S.; Perez, A.; Rugo, H.S.; Deleu, I.; et al. Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: Overall survival results from BOLERO-2dagger. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 2357–2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Schmid, P.; Zaiss, M.; Harper-Wynne, C.; Ferreira, M.; Dubey, S.; Chan, S.; Makris, A.; Nemsadze, G.; Brunt, A.M.; Kuemmel, S.; et al. Fulvestrant Plus Vistusertib vs Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus vs Fulvestrant Alone for Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: The MANTA Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 1556–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yi, Z.; Liu, B.; Sun, X.; Rong, G.; Wang, W.; Li, H.; Guan, X.; Li, L.; Zhai, J.; Li, C.; et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus combined with endocrine therapy in patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and the exploration of biomarkers. Breast 2020, 52, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Baselga, J.; Im, S.-A.; Iwata, H.; Cortes, J.; DE Laurentiis, M.; Jiang, Z.; Arteaga, C.L.; Jonat, W.; Clemons, M.; Ito, Y.; et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 904–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Di Leo, A.; Johnston, S.; Lee, K.S.; Ciruelos, E.; Lønning, P.E.; Janni, W.; O’Regan, R.; Mouret-Reynier, M.A.; Kalev, D.; Egle, D.; et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer progressing on or after mTOR inhibition (BELLE-3): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Campone, M.; Im, S.-A.; Iwata, H.; Clemons, M.; Ito, Y.; Awada, A.; Chia, S.; Jagiello-Gruszfeld, A.; Pistilli, B.; Tseng, L.-M.; et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, advanced breast cancer: Overall survival results from BELLE-2. Eur. J. Cancer 2018, 103, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dent, S.; Cortés, J.; Im, Y.-H.; Diéras, V.; Harbeck, N.; Krop, I.; Wilson, T.; Cui, N.; Schimmoller, F.; Hsu, J.; et al. Phase III randomized study of taselisib or placebo with fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, PIK3CA-mutant, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer: The SANDPIPER trial. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Andre, F.; Ciruelos, E.M.; Juric, D.; Loibl, S.; Campone, M.; Mayer, I.A.; Rubovszky, G.; Yamashita, T.; Kaufman, B.; Lu, Y.S.; et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: Final overall survival results from SOLAR-1. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ciruelos, E.M.; Rugo, H.S.; Mayer, I.A.; Levy, C.; Forget, F.; Delgado Mingorance, J.I.; Safra, T.; Masuda, N.; Park, Y.H.; Juric, D.; et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with PIK3CA-Mutated Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer from SOLAR-1. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 2005–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Andre, F.; Ciruelos, E.; Rubovszky, G.; Campone, M.; Loibl, S.; Rugo, H.S.; Iwata, H.; Conte, P.; Mayer, I.A.; Kaufman, B.; et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-Mutated, Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1929–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rugo, H.S.; Lerebours, F.; Ciruelos, E.; Drullinsky, P.; Ruiz-Borrego, M.; Neven, P.; Park, Y.H.; Prat, A.; Bachelot, T.; Juric, D.; et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Burstein, H.J.; Somerfield, M.R.; Barton, D.L.; Dorris, A.; Fallowfield, L.J.; Jain, D.; Johnston, S.R.D.; Korde, L.A.; Litton, J.K.; Macrae, E.R.; et al. Endocrine Treatment and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, JCO2101392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhang, M.; Jang, H.; Nussinov, R. PI3K inhibitors: Review and new strategies. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11, 5855–5865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shor, R.E.; Dai, J.; Lee, S.; Pisarsky, L.; Matei, I.; Lucotti, S.; Lyden, D.; Bissell, M.J.; Ghajar, C.M. The PI3K/mTOR inhibitor Gedatolisib eliminates dormant breast cancer cells in organotypic culture, but fails to prevent metastasis in preclinical settings. Mol. Oncol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  57. Smyth, L.M.; Tamura, K.; Oliveira, M.; Ciruelos, E.M.; Mayer, I.A.; Sablin, M.P.; Biganzoli, L.; Ambrose, H.J.; Ashton, J.; Barnicle, A.; et al. Capivasertib, an AKT Kinase Inhibitor, as Monotherapy or in Combination with Fulvestrant in Patients with AKT1 (E17K)-Mutant, ER-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 3947–3957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jones, R.H.; Casbard, A.; Carucci, M.; Cox, C.; Butler, R.; Alchami, F.; Madden, T.-A.; Bale, C.; Bezecny, P.; Joffe, J.; et al. Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (FAKTION): A multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Turner, N.; Howell, S.; Jhaveri, K.; Gomez, H.; Toi, M.; Hu, X.; Loibl, S.; Rugo, H.S.; Ni, P.; De Bruin, E.; et al. 350TiP A phase III trial of capivasertib and fulvestrant versus placebo and fulvestrant in patients with HR+/HER2− breast cancer (CAPItello-291). Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, S388–S389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dent, R.; Kim, S.-B.; Oliveira, M.; Barrios, C.; O’Shaughnessy, J.; Isakoff, S.J.; Saji, S.; Freitas-Junior, R.; Philco, M.; Bondarenko, I.; et al. Abstract GS3-04: Double-blind placebo (PBO)-controlled randomized phase III trial evaluating first-line ipatasertib (IPAT) combined with paclitaxel (PAC) for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered locally advanced unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC): Primary results from IPATunity130 Cohort A. Cancer Res. 2020, 81, GS3-04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Turner, N.; Dent, R.; O’Shaughnessy, J.; Kim, S.-B.; Isakoff, S.; Barrios, C.; Saji, S.; Bondarenko, I.; Nowecki, Z.; Lian, Q.; et al. 283MO Ipatasertib (IPAT) + paclitaxel (PAC) for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC): Primary results from Cohort B of the IPATunity130 randomised phase III trial. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, S354–S355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Finn, R.S.; Dering, J.; Conklin, D.; Kalous, O.; Cohen, D.J.; Desai, A.J.; Ginther, C.; Atefi, M.; Chen, I.; Fowst, C.; et al. PD 0332991, a selective cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitor, preferentially inhibits proliferation of luminal estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cell lines in vitro. Breast Cancer Res. 2009, 11, R77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Miller, T.W.; Balko, J.M.; Fox, E.M.; Ghazoui, Z.; Dunbier, A.; Anderson, H.; Dowsett, M.; Jiang, A.; Smith, R.A.; Maira, S.M.; et al. ERalpha-dependent E2F transcription can mediate resistance to estrogen deprivation in human breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011, 1, 338–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Turner, N.C.; Neven, P.; Loibl, S.; Andre, F. Advances in the treatment of advanced oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Lancet 2016, 389, 2403–2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Slamon, D.J.; Neven, P.; Chia, S.; Fasching, P.A.; De Laurentiis, M.; Im, S.A.; Petrakova, K.; Bianchi, G.V.; Esteva, F.J.; Martin, M.; 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, 2465–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Finn, R.S.; Martin, M.; Rugo, H.S.; Jones, S.; Im, S.-A.; Gelmon, K.; Harbeck, N.; Lipatov, O.N.; Walshe, J.M.; Moulder, S.; et al. Palbociclib and Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1925–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cristofanilli, M.; Turner, N.C.; Bondarenko, I.; Ro, J.; Im, S.-A.; Masuda, N.; Colleoni, M.; DeMichele, A.; Loi, S.; Verma, S.; 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, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sledge, J.G.W.; Toi, M.; Neven, P.; Sohn, J.; Inoue, K.; Pivot, X.; Burdaeva, O.; Okera, M.; Masuda, N.; Kaufman, P.A.; 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, 35, 2875–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Johnston, S.; Martin, M.; Di Leo, A.; Im, S.-A.; Awada, A.; Forrester, T.; Frenzel, M.; Hardebeck, M.C.; Cox, J.; Barriga, S.; et al. MONARCH 3 final PFS: A randomized study of abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer 2019, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tripathy, D.; Im, S.-A.; Colleoni, M.; Franke, F.; Bardia, A.; Harbeck, N.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Chow, L.; Sohn, J.; Lee, K.S.; 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, 904–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hortobagyi, G.; Stemmer, S.; Burris, H.; Yap, Y.-S.; Sonke, G.; Paluch-Shimon, S.; Campone, M.; Petrakova, K.; Blackwell, K.; Winer, E.; 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, 1541–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Giuliano, M.; Schettini, F.; Rognoni, C.; Milani, M.; Jerusalem, G.; Bachelot, T.; De Laurentiis, M.; Thomas, G.; De Placido, P.; Arpino, G.; et al. Endocrine treatment versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 1360–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schneeweiss, A.; Ettl, J.; Luftner, D.; Beckmann, M.W.; Belleville, E.; Fasching, P.A.; Fehm, T.N.; Geberth, M.; Haberle, L.; Hadji, P.; et al. Initial experience with CDK4/6 inhibitor-based therapies compared to antihormone monotherapies in routine clinical use in patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer—Data from the PRAEGNANT research network for the first 2 years of drug availability in Germany. Breast 2020, 54, 88–95. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hartkopf, A.D.; Huober, J.; Volz, B.; Nabieva, N.; Taran, F.-A.; Schwitulla, J.; Overkamp, F.; Kolberg, H.-C.; Hadji, P.; Tesch, H.; et al. Treatment landscape of advanced breast cancer patients with hormone receptor positive HER2 negative tumors—Data from the German PRAEGNANT breast cancer registry. Breast 2018, 37, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sledge, G.W., Jr.; Toi, M.; Neven, P.; Sohn, J.; Inoue, K.; Pivot, X.; Burdaeva, O.; Okera, M.; Masuda, N.; Kaufman, P.A.; 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, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Turner, N.C.; Slamon, D.J.; Ro, J.; Bondarenko, I.; Im, S.-A.; Masuda, N.; Colleoni, M.; DeMichele, A.; Loi, S.; Verma, S.; et al. Overall Survival with Palbociclib and Fulvestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 1926–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jimenez, M.M.; Zielinski, C.; Ruiz-Borrego, M.; Carrasco, E.; Ciruelos, E.; Muñoz, M.; Bermejo, B.; Margeli, M.; Csoszi, T.; Anton, A.; et al. 229MO Overall survival (OS) of palbociclib (P) plus endocrine therapy (ET) versus capecitabine (CAP) in hormone-receptor+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that progressed on aromatase inhibitors (AIs): Final results of the PEARL study. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, S457–S458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hortobagyi, G.N.; Stemmer, S.M.; Burris, H.A.; Yap, Y.S.; Sonke, G.; Hart, L.; Campone, M.; Petrakova, K.; Winer, E.P.; Janni, W.; et al. Overall Survival Results from the Phase III MONALEESA-2 Trial of Postmenopausal Patients with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Treated with Endocrine Therapy +/− Ribociclib. Presented at 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology, Paris, France, 16–21 September 2021. [Google Scholar]
  79. Slamon, D.J.; Neven, P.; Chia, S.; Jerusalem, G.; De Laurentiis, M.; Im, S.; Petrakova, K.; Bianchi, G.V.; Martin, M.; Nusch, A.; et al. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in the phase 3 randomized MONALEESA-3 trial: Updated overall survival. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tripathy, D.; Im, S.-A.; Colleoni, M.; Franke, F.; Bardia, A.; Harbeck, N.; Hurvitz, S.; Chow, L.; Sohn, J.; Lee, K.S.; et al. Abstract PD2-04: Updated overall survival (OS) results from the phase III MONALEESA-7 trial of pre- or perimenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) ± ribociclib. Cancer Res. 2021, 81, PD2-04. [Google Scholar]
  81. Sharifi, M.N.; Anandan, A.; Grogan, P.; O’Regan, R.M. Therapy after cyclin-dependent kinase inhibition in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: Resistance mechanisms and novel treatment strategies. Cancer 2020, 126, 3400–3416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xu, B. Dalpiciclib Extends Progression-Free Survival in HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer. Oncologist 2021, 26 (Suppl. S3), S9–S10. [Google Scholar]
  83. van Kruchten, M.; de Vries, E.G.; Glaudemans, A.W.; van Lanschot, M.C.; van Faassen, M.; Kema, I.P.; Brown, M.; Schroder, C.P.; de Vries, E.F.; Hospers, G.A. Measuring residual estrogen receptor availability during fulvestrant therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 2015, 5, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lai, A.C.; Crews, C.M. Induced protein degradation: An emerging drug discovery paradigm. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2017, 16, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Shomali, M.; Cheng, J.; Sun, F.; Koundinya, M.; Guo, Z.; Hebert, A.T.; McManus, J.; Levit, M.N.; Hoffmann, D.; Courjaud, A.; et al. SAR439859, a Novel Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader (SERD), Demonstrates Effective and Broad Antitumor Activity in Wild-Type and Mutant ER-Positive Breast Cancer Models. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2021, 20, 250–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Liang, J.; Zbieg, J.R.; Blake, R.A.; Chang, J.H.; Daly, S.; DiPasquale, A.G.; Friedman, L.S.; Gelzleichter, T.; Gill, M.; Giltnane, J.M.; et al. GDC-9545 (Giredestrant): A Potent and Orally Bioavailable Selective Estrogen Receptor Antagonist and Degrader with an Exceptional Preclinical Profile for ER+ Breast Cancer. J. Med. Chem. 2021, 64, 11841–11856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bardia, A.; Kaklamani, V.; Wilks, S.; Weise, A.; Richards, D.; Harb, W.; Osborne, C.; Wesolowski, R.; Karuturi, M.; Conkling, P.; et al. Phase I Study of Elacestrant (RAD1901), a Novel Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader, in ER-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1360–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Scott, J.S.; Moss, T.A.; Balazs, A.; Barlaam, B.; Breed, J.; Carbajo, R.J.; Chiarparin, E.; Davey, P.R.J.; Delpuech, O.; Fawell, S.; et al. Discovery of AZD9833, a Potent and Orally Bioavailable Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader and Antagonist. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 14530–14559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jhaveri, K.L.; Lim, E.; Hamilton, E.P.; Saura, C.; Meniawy, T.; Jeselsohn, R.; Beck, J.T.; Kaufman, P.A.; Sammons, S.; Banda, K.; et al. A first-in-human phase 1a/b trial of LY3484356, an oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader (SERD) in ER+ advanced breast cancer (aBC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer (EEC): Results from the EMBER study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hamilton, E.P.; Patel, M.R.; Armstrong, A.C.; Baird, R.D.; Jhaveri, K.; Hoch, M.; Klinowska, T.; Lindemann, J.; Morgan, S.R.; Schiavon, G.; et al. A First-in-Human Study of the New Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader AZD9496 for ER+/HER2− Advanced Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018, 24, 3510–3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Robertson, J.F.; Evans, A.; Henschen, S.; Kirwan, C.C.; Jahan, A.; Kenny, L.M.; Dixon, J.M.; Schmid, P.; Kothari, A.; Mohamed, O.; et al. A randomized, window of opportunity study comparing the effects of the novel oral SERD AZD9496 with fulvestrant in patients with ER+ HER2− primary breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 4242–4249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hurvitz, S.; Park, Y.; Bardia, A.; Quiroga, V.; López-Valverde, V.; Steinseifer, J.; Moore, H.; Spera, G.; Xue, C.; Fasching, P. LBA14 Neoadjuvant giredestrant (GDC-9545) + palbociclib (palbo) vs anastrozole (A) + palbo in post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, untreated early breast cancer (ER+/HER2– eBC): Interim analysis of the randomised, open-label, phase II coopERA BC study. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, S1285–S1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chandarlapaty, S.; Linden, H.M.; Neven, P.; Petrakova, K.; Bardiz, A.; Kabos, P.; Braga, S.; Boni, V.; Pelekanou, V.; Ternès, N.; et al. AMEERA-1: Subgroup analyses of phase I/II study of amcenestrant (SAR439859), an oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader (SERD), with palbociclib in postmenopausal women with ER+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (aBC). Presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology, Paris, France, 16–21 September 2021. [Google Scholar]
  94. Radius. Menarini Group and Radius Health Announce Positive Phase 3 Topline Results from the EMERALD Trial Evaluating Elacestrant in Breast Cancer. Press Release 20 October 2021. Available online: https://ir.radiuspharm.com/news-releases/news-release-details/menarini-group-and-radius-health-announce-positive-phase-3 (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  95. Fasching, P.A.; Yadav, S.; Hu, C.; Wunderle, M.; Haberle, L.; Hart, S.N.; Rubner, M.; Polley, E.C.; Lee, K.Y.; Gnanaolivu, R.D.; et al. Mutations in BRCA1/2 and Other Panel Genes in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer—Association with Patient and Disease Characteristics and Effect on Prognosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1619–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Robson, M.; Im, S.-A.; Senkus, E.; Xu, B.; Domchek, S.M.; Masuda, N.; Delaloge, S.; Li, W.; Tung, N.; Armstrong, A.; et al. Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Litton, J.K.; Rugo, H.S.; Ettl, J.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Gonçalves, A.; Lee, K.-H.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Yerushalmi, R.; Mina, L.A.; Martin, M.; et al. Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 753–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Robson, M.; Tung, N.; Conte, P.; Im, S.-A.; Senkus, E.; Xu, B.; Masuda, N.; Delaloge, S.; Li, W.; Armstrong, A.; 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, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Litton, J.K.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Mina, L.A.; Rugo, H.S.; Lee, K.H.; Goncalves, A.; Diab, S.; Woodward, N.; Goodwin, A.; Yerushalmi, R.; 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, 1526–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Thill, M.; Friedrich, M.; Kolberg-Liedtke, C.; Albert, U.-S.; Banys-Paluchowski, M.; Bauerfeind, I.; Blohmer, J.-U.; Budach, W.; Dall, P.; Fallenberg, E.M.; et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Locally Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Update 2021. Breast Care 2021, 16, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tesch, H.; Müller, V.; Wöckel, A.; Ettl, J.; Belleville, E.; Schütz, F.; Hartkopf, A.; Thill, M.; Huober, J.; Fasching, P.A.; et al. Update Breast Cancer 2020 Part 4—Advanced Breast Cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020, 80, 1115–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Stickeler, E.; Aktas, B.; Behrens, A.; Belleville, E.; Ditsch, N.; Fasching, P.A.; Fehm, T.N.; Hartkopf, A.D.; Jackisch, C.; Janni, W.; et al. Update Breast Cancer 2021 Part 1—Prevention and Early Stages. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021, 81, 526–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Huober, J.; Schneeweiss, A.; Hartkopf, A.D.; Müller, V.; Lux, M.P.; Janni, W.; Ettl, J.; Belleville, E.; Thill, M.; Fasching, P.A.; et al. Update Breast Cancer 2020 Part 3—Early Breast Cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020, 80, 1105–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ditsch, N.; Stickeler, E.; Behrens, A.; Belleville, E.; Fasching, P.A.; Fehm, T.N.; Hartkopf, A.D.; Jackisch, C.; Janni, W.; Kolberg-Liedtke, C.; et al. Update Breast Cancer 2021 Part 2—Advanced Stages, Long-Term Consequences and Biomarkers. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021, 81, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fehm, T.N.; Stickeler, E.; Fasching, P.A.; Janni, W.; Kolberg-Liedtke, C.; Kolberg, H.-C.; Lüftner, D.; Müller, V.; Schütz, F.; Thomssen, C.; et al. Update Breast Cancer 2021 Part 3—Current Developments in the Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: Review and Assessment of Specialised Treatment Scenarios by an International Expert Panel. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 2021, 81, 654–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Nabieva, N.; Fehm, T.; Haberle, L.; de Waal, J.; Rezai, M.; Baier, B.; Baake, G.; Kolberg, H.C.; Guggenberger, M.; Warm, M.; et al. Influence of side-effects on early therapy persistence with letrozole in post-menopausal patients with early breast cancer: Results of the prospective EvAluate-TM study. Eur. J. Cancer 2018, 96, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Stearns, V.; Chapman, J.-A.W.; Manuela, R.; Ellis, M.J.; Ingle, J.N.; Pritchard, K.I.; Budd, G.T.; Rabaglio, M.; Sledge, G.W.; Le Maitre, A.; et al. Treatment-Associated Musculoskeletal and Vasomotor Symptoms and Relapse-Free Survival in the NCIC CTG MA.27 Adjuvant Breast Cancer Aromatase Inhibitor Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Xu, X.; Chlebowski, R.T.; Shi, J.; Barac, A.; Haque, R. Aromatase inhibitor and tamoxifen use and the risk of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 174, 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. van Hellemond, I.E.G.; Smorenburg, C.H.; Peer, P.G.M.; Swinkels, A.C.P.; Seynaeve, C.M.; van der Sangen, M.J.C.; Kroep, J.R.; de Graaf, H.; Honkoop, A.H.; Erdkamp, F.L.G.; et al. Assessment and management of bone health in women with early breast cancer receiving endocrine treatment in the DATA study. Int. J. Cancer. 2019, 145, 1325–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Hadji, P.; Jackisch, C.; Bolten, W.; Blettner, M.; Hindenburg, H.J.; Klein, P.; Konig, K.; Kreienberg, R.; Rief, W.; Wallwiener, D.; et al. COMPliance and Arthralgia in Clinical Therapy: The COMPACT trial, assessing the incidence of arthralgia, and compliance within the first year of adjuvant anastrozole therapy. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chirgwin, J.H.; Giobbie-Hurder, A.; Coates, A.S.; Price, K.N.; Ejlertsen, B.; Debled, M.; Gelber, R.D.; Goldhirsch, A.; Smith, I.; Rabaglio, M.; et al. Treatment Adherence and Its Impact on Disease-Free Survival in the Breast International Group 1-98 Trial of Tamoxifen and Letrozole, Alone and in Sequence. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 2452–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Henry, N.L.; Azzouz, F.; Desta, Z.; Li, L.; Nguyen, A.T.; Lemler, S.; Hayden, J.; Tarpinian, K.; Yakim, E.; Flockhart, D.A.; et al. Predictors of Aromatase Inhibitor Discontinuation as a Result of Treatment-Emergent Symptoms in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 936–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lombard, J.M.; Zdenkowski, N.; Wells, K.; Beckmore, C.; Reaby, L.; Forbes, J.F.; Chirgwin, J. Aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal syndrome: A significant problem with limited treatment options. Support. Care Cancer 2016, 24, 2139–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Onesti, C.E.; Jerusalem, G. CDK4/6 inhibitors in breast cancer: Differences in toxicity profiles and impact on agent choice. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2021, 21, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Goetz, M.P.; Martin, M.; Tokunaga, E.; Park, I.H.; Huober, J.; Toi, M.; Stoffregen, C.; Shekarriz, S.; Andre, V.; Gainford, M.C.; et al. Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib plus an Aromatase Inhibitor as Initial Therapy in HR+, HER2− Advanced Breast Cancer. Oncologist 2020, 25, e1346–e1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Verma, S.; O’Shaughnessy, J.; Burris, H.A.; Campone, M.; Alba, E.; Chandiwana, D.; Dalal, A.A.; Sutradhar, S.; Monaco, M.; Janni, W. Health-related quality of life of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with ribociclib + letrozole: Results from MONALEESA-2. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2018, 170, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Rugo, H.; Diéras, V.; Gelmon, K.; Finn, R.; Slamon, D.; Martin, M.; Neven, P.; Shparyk, Y.; Mori, A.; Lu, D.; et al. Impact of palbociclib plus letrozole on patient-reported health-related quality of life: Results from the PALOMA-2 trial. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Nabieva, N.; Kellner, S.; Fehm, T.; Häberle, L.; de Waal, J.; Rezai, M.; Baier, B.; Baake, G.; Kolberg, H.-C.; Guggenberger, M.; et al. Influence of patient and tumor characteristics on early therapy persistence with letrozole in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: Results of the prospective Evaluate-TM study with 3941 patients. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Hadji, P.; Ziller, V.; Kyvernitakis, I.; Bauer, M.; Haas, G.; Schmidt, N.; Kostev, K. Persistence in patients with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors: A retrospective database analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2013, 138, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Hershman, D.L.; Shao, T.; Kushi, L.; Buono, D.; Tsai, W.Y.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Kwan, M.; Gomez, S.L.; Neugut, A.I. Early discontinuation and non-adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy are associated with increased mortality in women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2011, 126, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Partridge, A.H.; LaFountain, A.; Mayer, E.; Taylor, B.S.; Winer, E.; Asnis-Alibozek, A. Adherence to Initial Adjuvant Anastrozole Therapy among Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Cramer, J.A.; Roy, A.; Burrell, A.; Fairchild, C.J.; Fuldeore, M.J.; Ollendorf, D.A.; Wong, P.K. Medication Compliance and Persistence: Terminology and Definitions. Value Health 2008, 11, 44–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hershman, D.L.; Kushi, L.; Shao, T.; Buono, D.; Kershenbaum, A.; Tsai, W.-Y.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Gomez, S.L.; Miles, S.; Neugut, A.I. Early Discontinuation and Nonadherence to Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy in a Cohort of 8769 Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 4120–4128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Brito, C.; Portela, M.C.; De Vasconcellos, M.T.L. Adherence to hormone therapy among women with breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2014, 14, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Kemp, A.; Preen, D.B.; Saunders, C.; Boyle, F.; Bulsara, M.; Malacova, E.; Roughead, E.E. Early discontinuation of endocrine therapy for breast cancer: Who is at risk in clinical practice? Springerplus 2014, 3, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Wigertz, A.; Ahlgren, J.; Holmqvist, M.; Fornander, T.; Adolfsson, J.; Lindman, H.; Bergkvist, L.; Lambe, M. Adherence and discontinuation of adjuvant hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients: A population-based study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2012, 133, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Tinari, N.; Fanizza, C.; Romero, M.; Gambale, E.; Moscetti, L.; Vaccaro, A.; Seminara, P.; Longo, F.; Gori, S.; Vici, P.; et al. Identification of Subgroups of Early Breast Cancer Patients at High Risk of Nonadherence to Adjuvant Hormone Therapy: Results of an Italian Survey. Clin. Breast Cancer 2015, 15, e131–e137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Addeo, R.; Iodice, P.; Maiorino, L.; Febbraro, A.; Incoronato, P.; Pisano, A.; Bianco, M.; Mabilia, R.; Riccardi, F.; Del Prete, S. Acceptance and Adherence of Oral Endocrine Therapy in Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: Exacampania Group Study. Breast J. 2015, 21, 326–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Guth, U.; Huang, D.J.; Schotzau, A.; Schmid, S.M. Use of Palliative Endocrine Therapy in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive Distant Metastatic Breast Cancer: How Often, How Effective, How Long? Oncology 2016, 90, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Wallwiener, M.; Nabieva, N.; Feisst, M.; Fehm, T.; De Waal, J.; Rezai, M.; Baier, B.; Baake, G.; Kolberg, H.C.; Guggenberger, M.; et al. Patient and tumor characteristics and their influence on therapy persistence with letrozole in patients with advanced breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2018, submitted. [Google Scholar]
  131. Neugut, A.I.; Zhong, X.; Wright, J.D.; Accordino, M.; Yang, J.; Hershman, D.L. Nonadherence to Medications for Chronic Conditions and Nonadherence to Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy in Women with Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 1326–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Nabieva, N.; Häberle, L.; Brucker, S.Y.; Janni, W.; Volz, B.; Loehberg, C.R.; Hartkopf, A.; Walter, C.; Baake, G.; Fridman, A.; et al. The influence of preexisting joint and muscle/limb pain on the development of musculoskeletal adverse events during letrozole treatment in early breast cancer patients—Final results from the PreFace study. Int. J. Cancer 2018, submitted. [Google Scholar]
  133. Robertson, J.F.R.; Bondarenko, I.; Trishkina, E.; Dvorkin, M.; Panasci, L.; Manikhas, A.; Shparyk, Y.; Cardona-Huerta, S.; Cheung, K.-L.; Philco-Salas, M.J.; 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, 2997–3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Wallwiener, M.; Nabieva, N.; Feisst, M.; Fehm, T.; de Waal, J.; Rezai, M.; Baier, B.; Baake, G.; Kolberg, H.C.; Guggenberger, M.; et al. Influence of patient and tumor characteristics on therapy persistence with letrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: Results of the prospective observational EvAluate-TM study. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Loibl, S.; Marmé, F.; Martin, M.; Untch, M.; Bonnefoi, H.; Kim, S.-B.; Bear, H.; McCarthy, N.; Olivé, M.M.; Gelmon, K.; et al. Palbociclib for Residual High-Risk Invasive HR-Positive and HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer—The Penelope-B Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1518–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mayer, E.L.; Dueck, A.C.; Martin, M.; Rubovszky, G.; Burstein, H.J.; Bellet-Ezquerra, M.; Miller, K.D.; Zdenkowski, N.; Winer, E.P.; Pfeiler, G.; et al. Palbociclib with adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (PALLAS): Interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. O’Shaughnessy, J.A.; Johnston, S.; Harbeck, N.; Toi, M.; Im, Y.-H.; Reinisch, M.; Shao, Z.; Lehtinen, P.L.K.; Huang, C.-S.; Tryakin, A.; et al. Abstract GS1-01: Primary outcome analysis of invasive disease-free survival for monarchE: Abemaciclib combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy for high risk early breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2021, 81, GS1-01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Harbeck, N.; Rastogi, P.; Martin, M.; Tolaney, S.; Shao, Z.; Fasching, P.; Huang, C.; Jaliffe, G.; Tryakin, A.; Goetz, M.; et al. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: Updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann. Oncol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Slamon, D.J.; Fasching, P.A.; Patel, R.; Verma, S.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Chia, S.K.L.; Crown, J.; Martin, M.; Barrios, C.H.; Spera, G.; et al. NATALEE: Phase III study of ribociclib (RIBO) + endocrine therapy (ET) as adjuvant treatment in hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) early breast cancer (EBC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, TPS597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Prat, A.; Saura, C.; Pascual, T.; Hernando, C.; Munoz, M.; Pare, L.; Farré, B.G.; Fernández, P.L.; Galván, P.; Chic, N.; et al. Ribociclib plus letrozole versus chemotherapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, luminal B breast cancer (CORALLEEN): An open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Hurvitz, S.A.; Martin, M.; Press, M.F.; Chan, D.; Fernandez-Abad, M.; Petru, E.; Rostorfer, R.; Guarneri, V.; Huang, C.-S.; Barriga, S.; et al. Potent Cell-Cycle Inhibition and Upregulation of Immune Response with Abemaciclib and Anastrozole in neoMONARCH, Phase II Neoadjuvant Study in HR+/HER2− Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 566–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Cottu, P.; D’Hondt, V.; Dureau, S.; Lerebours, F.; Desmoulins, I.; Heudel, P.; Duhoux, F.; Levy, C.; Mouret-Reynier, M.-A.; Dalenc, F.; et al. Letrozole and palbociclib versus chemotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy of high-risk luminal breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 2334–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ma, C.X.; Gao, F.; Luo, J.; Northfelt, D.W.; Goetz, M.; Forero, A.; Hoog, J.; Naughton, M.; Ademuyiwa, F.; Suresh, R.; et al. NeoPalAna: Neoadjuvant Palbociclib, a Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitor, and Anastrozole for Clinical Stage 2 or 3 Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 4055–4065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Harbeck, N.; Gluz, O.; Christgen, M.; Graeser, M.; Hilpert, F.; Krauss, K.; Thill, M.; Warm, M.; Müller, V.; Braun, M.W.; et al. ADAPTcycle: Adjuvant dynamic marker-adjusted personalized therapy (ADAPT) comparing endocrine therapy plus ribociclib versus chemotherapy in intermediate-risk HR+/HER2− early breast cancer (EBC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, TPS601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Prat, A.; Chaudhury, A.; Solovieff, N.; Paré, L.; Martinez, D.; Chic, N.; Martínez-Sáez, O.; Brasó-Maristany, F.; Lteif, A.; Taran, T.; et al. Correlative Biomarker Analysis of Intrinsic Subtypes and Efficacy Across the MONALEESA Phase III Studies. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1458–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Saura, C.; Hlauschek, D.; Oliveira, M.; Zardavas, D.; Jallitsch-Halper, A.; de la Peña, L.; Nuciforo, P.; Ballestrero, A.; Dubsky, P.; Lombard, J.M.; et al. Neoadjuvant letrozole plus taselisib versus letrozole plus placebo in postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer (LORELEI): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 1226–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Mayer, I.A.; Prat, A.; Egle, D.; Blau, S.; Fidalgo, J.A.P.; Gnant, M.; Fasching, P.A.; Colleoni, M.; Wolff, A.; Winer, E.P.; et al. A Phase II Randomized Study of Neoadjuvant Letrozole Plus Alpelisib for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer (NEO-ORB). Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 2975–2987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Sanofi. Sanofi Partnering with Leading Academic Cooperative Groups to Study Amcenestrant in the Adjuvant Setting for Patients with Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer. Press Release 4 June 2021. Available online: https://www.sanofi.com/en/media-room/press-releases/2021/2021-06-04-07-00-00-2241809 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  149. TRIO. TRIO Enrols First Patient in Global Phase 3 Giredestrant Early Breast Cancer TriaL. Press Release 31 August 2021. Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/08/31/2289261/0/en/TRIO-Enrols-First-Patient-in-Global-Phase-3-Giredestrant-Early-Breast-Cancer-Trial.html (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  150. Schiewer, M.J.; Goodwin, J.F.; Han, S.; Brenner, J.C.; Augello, M.A.; Dean, J.L.; Liu, F.; Planck, J.L.; Ravindranathan, P.; Chinnaiyan, A.M.; et al. Dual Roles of PARP-1 Promote Cancer Growth and Progression. Cancer Discov. 2012, 2, 1134–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Luo, X.; Huang, K.; Wang, C.; Du, M.; Liu, F.; Luo, T.; Huang, D.; et al. Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase 1 Is a Key Regulator of Estrogen Receptor α-dependent Gene Transcription. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 11348–11357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Tutt, A.N.; Garber, J.E.; Kaufman, B.; Viale, G.; Fumagalli, D.; Rastogi, P.; Gelber, R.D.; de Azambuja, E.; Fielding, A.; Balmaña, J.; et al. Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-Mutated Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 2394–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 13 05643 g001 550
Figure 1. Therapeutic mechanisms of endocrine therapy (simplified representation) [16,17]. AKT: AKT murine thymoma viral oncogene; ER(alpha): estrogen receptor (alpha); CDK4/6: cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6; mTOR: mammalian target of rapamycin; PI3K: phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase; SERD: selective estrogen receptor degrader; SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Figure 1. Therapeutic mechanisms of endocrine therapy (simplified representation) [16,17]. AKT: AKT murine thymoma viral oncogene; ER(alpha): estrogen receptor (alpha); CDK4/6: cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6; mTOR: mammalian target of rapamycin; PI3K: phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase; SERD: selective estrogen receptor degrader; SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Cancers 13 05643 g001
Table
Table 1. Efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative aBC phase III trials (in alphabetical and numerical order).
Table 1. Efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative aBC phase III trials (in alphabetical and numerical order).
Treatment CombinationStudy NameSample SizeRandomizationMedian PFS in MonthsMedian OS in Months
With CDK4/6 InhibitorWithout CDK4/6 InhibitorHR95% CIStatistically Significant as per ProtocolWith CDK4/6 InhibitorWithout CDK4/6 InhibitorHR95% CIStatistically Significant as per Protocol
ET +/− abemaciclibMONARCH-2 [68,75]6692:116.49.30.550.45–0.68Yes46.737.30.760.61–0.95Yes
MONARCH-3 [69]4932:128.214.80.540.42–0.70YesNot reported yet
ET +/− dalpiciclibDAWNA-1 [82]3612:113.6 17.7 10.45 10.32–0.64 1Yes 1Not reported yet
ET +/− palbociclibPALOMA-2 [66]6662:124.814.50.580.46–0.72YesNot reported yet
PALOMA-3 [67,76]5212:19.54.60.460.36–0.59Yes34.928.00.810.64–1.03No
ET +/− ribociclibMONALEESA-2 [71,78]6681:125.316.00.570.46–0.70Yes63.951.40.760.63–0.93Yes
MONALEESA-3 [65,79]7262:120.512.80.590.48–0.73Yes53.741.50.730.59–0.90Yes
MONALEESA-7 [70,80]6721:123.813.00.550.44–0.69Yes58.748.00.760.61–0.96Yes
HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; aBC: advanced breast cancer; CI: confidence interval; ET: endocrine treatment; HR: hazard ratio; OS: overall survival; and PFS: progression-free survival. 1 As assessed by an independent review committee.
Table
Table 2. Selection of novel SERDs under clinical development in phase III eBC/aBC trials (in alphabetical order; based on clinicaltrials.gov, accessed on 22 September 2021) [56].
Table 2. Selection of novel SERDs under clinical development in phase III eBC/aBC trials (in alphabetical order; based on clinicaltrials.gov, accessed on 22 September 2021) [56].
Substance NameOriginal Substance CodeTrial Program
Amcenestrant [85]SAR439859AMEERA
Camizestrant [88]AZD9833SERENA
Elacestrant [87]RAD1901EMERALD
Giredestrant [86]GDC-9545persevERA (aBC) and lidERA (eBC)
- 1LY3484356 [89]EMBER
SERD: selective estrogen receptor degrader; eBC: early breast cancer; and aBC: advanced breast cancer. 1 Data unknown at the time of writing this manuscript.
Table
Table 3. Selection of key ongoing CDK4/6 inhibitor trials on hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative eBC (in alphabetical order; based on clinicaltrials.gov, accessed on 22 September 2021) [56].
Table 3. Selection of key ongoing CDK4/6 inhibitor trials on hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative eBC (in alphabetical order; based on clinicaltrials.gov, accessed on 22 September 2021) [56].
CDK4/6 InhibitorAbemaciclibDalpiciclibPalbociclib 1Ribociclib
Study nameADAPTlateCARABELAmonarchEPOETIC-ASHR6390-III-303AppalachesPOLARTRAK-ERADAPTcycleLEADERNATALEE
Study codeNCT04565054NCT04293393NCT03155997NCT04584853NCT04842617NCT03609047NCT03820830NCT04985266NCT04055493NCT03285412NCT03701334
PhaseIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Brief study summaryAdjuvant abemaciclib + SOC ET vs. SOC ETNeoadjuvant abemaciclib + SOC ET vs. chemotherapyAdjuvant abemaciclib + SOC ET vs. SOC ETAdjuvant abemaciclib + SOC ET vs. SOC ETAdjuvant dalpiciclib + SOC ET vs. SOC ETAdjuvant palbociclib + SOC ET vs. chemotherapy followed by SOC ETAdjuvant palbociclib + SOC ET vs. SOC ETAdjuvant palbociclib + fulvestrant vs. SOC ETAdjuvant ribociclib + SOC ET vs. chemotherapy followed by SOC ETAdjuvant intermittent ribociclib + SOC ET vs. continuous ribociclib + SOC ETAdjuvant ribociclib + SOC ET vs. SOC ET
Main patient population criteriaHigh riskHigh and intermediate riskHigh riskHigh riskHigh riskHigh riskLocal/regional recurrenceHigh riskIntermediate riskHigh and intermediate riskHigh and intermediate risk
Pre- and postmenopausalPre- and postmenopausalPre- and postmenopausalPostmenopausalNode-positive≥70 years oldPre- and postmenopausalPre- and postmenopausalPre- and postmenopausalMRD based on ctDNAPre- and postmenopausal
Female onlyFemale onlyMale patients allowedFemale onlyPre- and postmenopausalMale patients allowedMale patients allowedMale patients allowedFemale onlyPre- and postmenopausalMale patients allowed
Female only
Randomization1:11:11:11:11:12:11:11:13:21:11:1
Duration of CDK4/6i intake2 years1 year2 years2 years- 22 years3 years2 years2 years1 year3 years
Number of patients1250200563725004350366400110016702315101
Primary endpointiDFSRCBiDFSiDFSiDFSD-RFIiDFSctDNA, iDFSiDFSSafetyiDFS
HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; CDK4/6i: CDK4/6 inhibitor; ctDNA: circulating tumor DNA; eBC: early breast cancer; D-RFI: distant recurrence-free interval; ET: endocrine treatment; iDFS: invasive disease-free survival; MRD: minimal residual disease; RCB: residual cancer burden; and SOC: standard of care. 1 Further trials with palbociclib in eBC, such as PenelopeB [135] and PALLAS [136], are not listed here due to already reported negative results. 2 Data unknown at the time of writing this manuscript.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nabieva, N.; Fasching, P.A. Endocrine Treatment for Breast Cancer Patients Revisited—History, Standard of Care, and Possibilities of Improvement. Cancers 2021, 13, 5643. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13225643

AMA Style

Nabieva N, Fasching PA. Endocrine Treatment for Breast Cancer Patients Revisited—History, Standard of Care, and Possibilities of Improvement. Cancers. 2021; 13(22):5643. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13225643

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nabieva, Naiba, and Peter A. Fasching. 2021. "Endocrine Treatment for Breast Cancer Patients Revisited—History, Standard of Care, and Possibilities of Improvement" Cancers 13, no. 22: 5643. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13225643

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop