Part VIII · Therapeutic foundations · Chapter 44

Endocrine therapy

Four ways to interrupt one pathway, and what each failure tells you to do next.

1 · Ovarian suppression and ablation

In a premenopausal woman the ovary is the dominant source of oestrogen, and it is under hypothalamic feedback control. That single fact explains the whole section. An aromatase inhibitor given alone to a premenopausal woman lowers circulating oestrogen, raises gonadotropin drive, and provokes the ovary to compensate. Aromatase inhibition therefore requires ovarian suppression to work at all, while tamoxifen does not.

Suppression can be achieved with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, by oophorectomy, or by ovarian irradiation. The three differ in reversibility and in speed rather than in mechanism.

Adding suppression to tamoxifen improves outcome, and the benefit is concentrated in women at higher risk. In SOFT, one of the two trials analysed together as SOFT/TEXT, eight-year disease-free survival was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen and ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane and ovarian suppression1. Eight-year overall survival was 91.5%, 93.3% and 92.1%. Among women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy the corresponding survival figures were 85.1%, 89.4% and 87.2%. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 24.6%, 31.0% and 32.3%.

The combined analysis of the two trials covered 4690 patients2. Five-year disease-free survival was 91.1% with exemestane and suppression against 87.3% with tamoxifen and suppression. The hazard ratio was 0.72, with an interval of 0.60 to 0.85. Overall survival did not differ.

A meta-analysis pooled 7030 women from four trials of an aromatase inhibitor against tamoxifen under ovarian suppression3. The recurrence rate ratio was 0.79, and the benefit was confined to the years when the treatments differed. Five-year recurrence was 6.9% against 10.1%, an absolute reduction of 3.2 percentage points. Breast cancer mortality did not differ, with a rate ratio of 1.01 and an interval of 0.82 to 1.24. Fractures were more common with the aromatase inhibitor, at 6.4% against 5.1%.

Caution

The aromatase inhibitor advantage under ovarian suppression is a recurrence advantage that has not become a mortality difference at current follow-up3. Both statements are true and they support different conversations.

The related measurement trap is menopausal status itself. Chemotherapy-induced amenorrhoea is not proof of ovarian failure, and ovarian function recovers in some women who appear postmenopausal by history. Prescribing an aromatase inhibitor on an assumed menopausal status rather than a measured one risks giving an ineffective drug. The clinical selection rules are in Ovarian function suppression and who benefits and the fertility consequences in Young adults, fertility, and pregnancy.

2 · Aromatase inhibition and estrogen synthesis blockade

After menopause the residual oestrogen comes from peripheral aromatisation of adrenal androgens, much of it in adipose tissue and some of it within the breast itself. Aromatase inhibition removes the substrate rather than blocking the receptor. Anastrozole and letrozole inhibit the enzyme reversibly. Exemestane is a steroidal substrate analogue that inactivates it irreversibly.

The efficacy comparison against tamoxifen rests on individual patient data from 31,920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor positive disease4. Five years of an aromatase inhibitor against five years of tamoxifen reduced 10-year breast cancer mortality from 14.2% to 12.1%, a rate ratio of 0.85. Switching to an aromatase inhibitor after two or three years of tamoxifen reduced 10-year breast cancer mortality from 10.1% to 8.7%. Endometrial cancer was less frequent with aromatase inhibition, at 0.4% against 1.2% at 10 years, and fractures more frequent, at 8.2% against 5.5% at five years.

The structure of that benefit matters more than its size. Recurrence rate ratios favoured the aromatase inhibitor during the years when the treatments differed, at 0.70, and not afterwards, at 0.934. The drug works while it is being taken. It does not eradicate a population that then stays eradicated, which is the same argument that governs duration in Treatment duration and extended therapy.

Adipose tissue is a site of aromatase expression, and inflamed breast adipose tissue in women with obesity expresses more of it5. That connects body composition to the substrate supply this class is trying to remove, and the host biology is developed in Host and tumor interactions.

The measurement point in this section is the eligibility criterion rather than the drug. Postmenopausal status is defined by a combination of age, history and hormone assays, and each of those can be wrong in an individual.

3 · Selective receptor modulation and degradation

Tamoxifen is a competitive antagonist in breast tissue and a partial agonist elsewhere, which is where both its endometrial risk and its bone benefit come from. The efficacy data come from individual patient data on 21,457 women in 20 trials6. In oestrogen receptor positive disease, about five years of tamoxifen reduced recurrence with a rate ratio of 0.53 during years 0 to 4. The ratio was 0.68 during years 5 to 9 and 0.97 during years 10 to 14. Breast cancer mortality was reduced by about a third throughout the first 15 years.

Two findings from that analysis have outsized consequences. Oestrogen receptor status was the only recorded factor importantly predictive of the proportional benefit, which is why the receptor assay carries so much weight. And benefit was substantial even in marginally positive disease, with a recurrence rate ratio of 0.67 in tumours expressing 10 to 19 fmol per mg of cytosol protein6. The modern version of that boundary problem is the 1% threshold and the ER-low category discussed in ER and PR testing, thresholds, and the ER-low category and ER-low and discordant receptor phenotypes.

Genotype-guided tamoxifen dosing has not been established. Analysis of CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 genotype in tamoxifen-treated patients did not support genotype as a determinant of recurrence risk7. BIG 1-98 tested the same hypothesis in 4393 postmenopausal women whose metaboliser phenotype could be assigned8. Among those given tamoxifen alone without chemotherapy, poor or intermediate metabolisers had no worse breast cancer-free interval, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 against extensive metabolisers. They had more tamoxifen-induced hot flushes, the opposite of what the hypothesis predicted. The earlier literature pointed the other way and is worth knowing, because it is still quoted. In one cohort, two functional CYP2D6 alleles were associated with better outcomes and reduced-function alleles with worse9. In another, the difference disappeared on multivariate analysis10. The pharmacogenetic case was argued in editorials and reviews11,12.

Fulvestrant degrades the receptor rather than modulating it, and its limitation is delivery. It requires intramuscular injection and achieves incomplete receptor occupancy at tolerable doses. Dose matters, which is itself evidence that occupancy was the constraint. In CONFIRM, 500 mg outperformed 250 mg with a hazard ratio for progression-free survival of 0.80 and an interval of 0.68 to 0.9413. In FALCON, 462 endocrine-naive patients with advanced disease had median progression-free survival of 16.6 months with fulvestrant and 13.8 months with anastrozole, a hazard ratio of 0.79714.

The practical reading is that degradation is a better mechanism than modulation against a receptor that has stopped needing its ligand, and that fulvestrant delivers that mechanism imperfectly. That is the entire rationale for the agents in Oral degraders and next-generation agents.

4 · Oral degraders and next-generation agents

The problem these agents were built for is specific. Mutations in the ligand-binding domain of ESR1 confer ligand-independent receptor activity, so removing oestrogen stops working while the receptor remains present and still targetable. The biology is developed in Estrogen receptor signaling and endocrine resistance and the evidence that the mutation is selected by aromatase inhibitor exposure rather than present at diagnosis is in Endocrine therapy and the emergence of ESR1 alterations.

EMERALD randomised 477 patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure to elacestrant or standard endocrine monotherapy15. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.70 in all patients and 0.55 in patients with a detectable ESR1 mutation, who made up 47.8% of the trial. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 7.2% against 3.1%, and nausea of any grade in 35.0% against 18.8%.

EMBER-3 randomised 874 patients three ways and produced the more informative comparison16. Among 256 patients with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival was 5.5 months with imlunestrant and 3.8 months with standard endocrine therapy. In the overall population the medians were 5.6 and 5.5 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.87 and a p value of 0.12. Adding abemaciclib to imlunestrant gave 9.4 months against 5.5 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.57, and did so regardless of ESR1 status. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 17.1%, 20.7% and 48.6% of the three groups.

Read plainly, the largest effect in that trial did not come from the degrader. It came from adding cell cycle inhibition, and it cost roughly three times the rate of grade 3 or higher toxicity.

A phase 2 trial compared camizestrant with fulvestrant in 240 postmenopausal patients17. Median progression-free survival was 7.2 months at the 75 mg dose against 3.7 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.59.

The other use of these agents is pre-emptive switching on a molecular signal. PADA-1 monitored 1017 patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib for a rising ESR1 mutation in blood, and randomised 172 of them to switch to fulvestrant or to continue18. Progression-free survival from randomisation was 11.9 months with the switch and 5.7 months without it, a hazard ratio of 0.61. SERENA-6 applied the same design with camizestrant, switching at ESR1 emergence before radiographic progression19.

Caution

Both switching trials randomised only the patients whose blood test converted. In PADA-1, 279 of 1017 patients developed a rising ESR1 mutation and 172 were randomised18. The progression-free survival gain is therefore a gain in about a sixth of the population that was monitored.

A strategy result is not a drug result. The question the trial answers is what happens to those who convert, and the question a clinic faces is whether to monitor everyone. Those two have different denominators, and the general form of this problem is set out in Lead time and the unresolved question of whether acting early helps.

Targeted receptor degradation by heterobifunctional molecules is the next mechanism in development, and it is covered in Emerging therapeutic platforms. The metastatic sequencing that follows from all of these agents belongs to Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders and their biomarker-defined benefit and is not repeated here.

5 · Treatment duration and extended therapy

Hormone receptor positive breast cancer recurs at a steady rate for at least two decades, so the duration question never closes. One meta-analysis followed 62,923 women who were disease-free after five years of endocrine therapy20. The risk of distant recurrence between years 5 and 20 ranged from 13% in T1N0 disease to 41% in T2 disease with four to nine positive nodes. Within T1N0 disease the 5 to 20 year distant recurrence risk was 10% for low grade, 13% for moderate grade and 17% for high grade. Recurrences occurred at a steady rate throughout. The biology of that long tail is in Dormancy, residual disease, and late recurrence and Annual hazard of recurrence and the long tail of hormone receptor-positive disease.

Extending tamoxifen to 10 years reduces recurrence and mortality, and the effect is delayed. ATLAS randomised 12,894 women after they completed five years, and 6846 of them had oestrogen receptor positive disease21. In that group the cumulative recurrence risk during years 5 to 14 was 21.4% with continuation and 25.1% with stopping. Breast cancer mortality during years 5 to 14 was 12.2% and 15.0%, an absolute reduction of 2.8 percentage points. The recurrence rate ratio was 0.90 during years 5 to 9 and 0.75 thereafter. Endometrial cancer incidence during years 5 to 14 was 3.1% against 1.6%, with mortality of 0.4% against 0.2%, and the rate ratio for pulmonary embolus was 1.87.

Extending an aromatase inhibitor produces a smaller and more ambiguous result. In MA.17R, 1918 women received five further years of letrozole or placebo after prior aromatase inhibitor therapy22. Five-year disease-free survival was 95% against 91%, a hazard ratio of 0.66. Five-year overall survival was 93% against 94%, a hazard ratio of 0.97. The annual incidence of contralateral breast cancer was 0.21% against 0.49%. Bone pain, fractures and new osteoporosis were all more frequent with letrozole.

Caution

Much of the MA.17R disease-free survival difference came from contralateral breast cancers22. A contralateral cancer is a new primary rather than a recurrence of the treated disease, and preventing one is a different achievement from preventing relapse.

Overall survival was unchanged. "Extended aromatase inhibition improves disease-free survival" and "extended aromatase inhibition did not improve survival in this trial" are both accurate. A patient weighing five more years of arthralgia and bone loss is entitled to both sentences.

In practice

Match duration to residual risk, because the absolute benefit scales with that risk and the toxicity does not. The nodal and tumour-size table from20 is the right starting point.

Ask what the patient actually tolerated in the first five years before proposing five more. A nominal extension that is abandoned in month four has delivered toxicity and no benefit.

Reassess bone density before extending an aromatase inhibitor, and treat the fracture risk as part of the decision rather than as a downstream consequence of it Bone health and cardiovascular risk after treatment.

The setting-specific rules for early disease are in Extended adjuvant therapy and the shape of the late benefit and the toxicity management in Endocrine therapy symptom burden.

6 · Endocrine combination strategies

Endocrine therapy fails through a small number of pathways, and each has a class of inhibitor with randomised evidence. This section is a map. The drug-level detail is in Targeted therapy and the metastatic ordering in Endocrine resistance, and the presentations the sequence does not fit.

Cell cycle inhibition is the largest effect. CDK4/6 inhibitors added to endocrine therapy improve progression-free survival in advanced disease23,24,25, improve overall survival in some trials26, and improve invasive disease-free survival in high-risk early disease27,28. The pathway is developed in Cell cycle regulation.

mTOR inhibition with everolimus improves progression-free survival after aromatase inhibitor failure29. PI3K, AKT and PTEN alterations define populations for alpelisib30 and capivasertib31, and the network is developed in PI3K, AKT, mTOR, and related networks.

The timing question is separate from the choice of partner, and SONIA answered it in a way worth remembering. Giving a CDK4/6 inhibitor first line rather than second line did not improve progression-free survival from randomisation to second progression, the trial's primary endpoint32. Nor did it improve overall survival, which was 47.9 against 48.1 months with a hazard ratio of 0.9133. More exposure was not better. That result belongs to the de-escalation argument in Escalation, de-escalation, and treatment omission as much as to sequencing, and what a null strategy comparison does and does not establish is set out in Designing de-escalation trials and the non-inferiority margin problem.

The general pattern across all these combinations is that progression-free survival improves reliably and overall survival improves inconsistently, at a real cost in toxicity and in cumulative treatment burden. Why that gap exists, and what it means for interpreting a progression-free survival result, is the subject of Endpoints, surrogates, and the overall survival question.

7 · Adherence, symptom burden, and the gap between prescribed and received

Every efficacy estimate in this chapter comes from a trial with monitored adherence. Practice does not look like that, and the difference is large enough to change the expected benefit.

In a cohort of 8769 women with hormone-sensitive stage I to III disease who filled at least one prescription, 32% had discontinued endocrine therapy by 4.5 years34. Among those who continued, 72% were fully adherent by refill records. Taken together, 49% of the cohort took the therapy for the full duration on the intended schedule. Women under 40 had the highest risk of discontinuation, with a hazard ratio of 1.51 and an interval of 1.23 to 1.85.

The dominant reason is musculoskeletal. In a survey of 200 consecutive postmenopausal women receiving an adjuvant aromatase inhibitor, 94 reported joint pain that began or worsened after starting the drug and 88 reported joint stiffness35. Prior taxane chemotherapy was associated with higher odds of both. That prevalence is higher than the figures reported in the registration trials, which is itself a finding about how adverse events are captured.

Vasomotor symptoms, sexual dysfunction and mood change contribute, and they are frequently not volunteered. The systematic management of these symptoms is in Endocrine therapy symptom burden and Sexual health and menopausal symptoms.

In practice

Treat a 15% relative risk reduction delivered to half the prescribed population as what it is. The population-level benefit is not the trial-level benefit, and improving adherence has the same arithmetic effect as finding a better drug.

Ask about symptoms with a specific question rather than an open one. "Are you managing" reliably returns yes.

Switching within the aromatase inhibitor class helps some patients, and switching to tamoxifen is a legitimate option rather than a failure. A tolerated drug taken for five years outperforms a better drug stopped in year one.

Identify the high-risk groups in advance. Age under 40 and previous taxane exposure both predict discontinuation34,35, and the access and cost drivers are in Financial toxicity as a clinical outcome.

8 · Resistance patterns and what they predict for the next line

Resistance to endocrine therapy is not one phenomenon, and the clinically useful question is what each pattern predicts about the next line. The biological taxonomy is in A working taxonomy of endocrine resistance and the cross-class version in Mechanisms of therapeutic resistance.

An ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutation means the receptor is active without ligand. It predicts poor return from further oestrogen deprivation and preserved sensitivity to receptor-directed treatment. In the SoFEA trial, patients with an ESR1 mutation had better progression-free survival on fulvestrant than on exemestane, with a hazard ratio of 0.52 and an interval of 0.30 to 0.9236. Patients with wild-type ESR1 did equally well on either. In PALOMA-3, analysed in the same report, palbociclib added to fulvestrant helped both groups, with hazard ratios of 0.43 in mutant and 0.49 in wild-type disease. Cell cycle inhibition is therefore not the thing the mutation escapes.

The mutation also carries prognostic weight independent of what is given next. In a secondary analysis of baseline plasma from 541 patients, 156 carried Y537S or D538G37. Median overall survival was 32.1 months in wild-type disease, 26.0 months with D538G, 20.0 months with Y537S, and 15.2 months in patients carrying both.

Loss of receptor expression is a different failure and predicts nothing endocrine will help. It reflects lineage change rather than pathway rewiring, and it is developed in Lineage plasticity and loss of endocrine dependence. A receptor result that has converted at biopsy should be interpreted with the discordance framework in Receptor discordance and conversion.

Bypass through PI3K, AKT or PTEN predicts benefit from pathway inhibition and identifies the populations for the agents named in Endocrine combination strategies. Escape from cell cycle inhibition through RB1 loss or cyclin E amplification is a separate axis again, and the evidence that the drug class selects for it is in CDK4/6 inhibition and the evolution of cell cycle escape and CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance, Rb loss, cyclin E, and bypass pathways.

Caution

A negative plasma ESR1 result is not evidence of endocrine sensitivity. Detection depends on how much tumour DNA is being shed and on the sensitivity of the assay, and both vary with disease burden and site Biology of circulating tumor DNA, shedding, half-life, and detectability, Clonal hematopoiesis and other false positives.

The same caution applies to timing. Testing before aromatase inhibitor exposure tests for a mutation that the exposure has not yet selected Endocrine therapy and the emergence of ESR1 alterations, so a negative result then says little about what will be present at progression.

Interplay

Endocrine resistance is the book's cleanest example of treatment producing the resistance it then encounters. The ESR1 mutation is not found in untreated disease at meaningful frequency, and it appears under the specific pressure of oestrogen deprivation. That makes the choice of next line a question about what the previous line selected for, rather than a question about what the tumour was at diagnosis.

See Temporal heterogeneity and clonal evolution

References

All 37 references
  1. Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018 379:122-137. PMID 29863451
  2. Pagani O, Regan MM, Walley BA, et al. Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2014 371:107-118. PMID 24881463
  3. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with ovarian suppression: a patient-level meta-analysis of 7030 women from four randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2022 23:382-392. PMID 35123662
  4. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. Lancet 2015 386:1341-1352. PMID 26211827
  5. Morris PG, Hudis CA, Giri D, et al. Inflammation and increased aromatase expression occur in the breast tissue of obese women with breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011 4:1021-1029. PMID 21622727
  6. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). 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. PMID 21802721
  7. Rae JM, Drury S, Hayes DF, et al. CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 genotype and risk of recurrence in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012 104:452-460. PMID 22395643
  8. Regan MM, Leyland-Jones B, Bouzyk M, et al. CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen response in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: the breast international group 1-98 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012 104:441-51. PMID 22395644
  9. Schroth W, Goetz MP, Hamann U, et al. Association between CYP2D6 polymorphisms and outcomes among women with early stage breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. JAMA 2009 302:1429-36. PMID 19809024
  10. Park HS, Choi JY, Lee MJ, et al. Association between genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6 and outcomes in breast cancer patients with tamoxifen treatment. J Korean Med Sci 2011 26:1007-13. PMID 21860550
  11. Garber K. Tamoxifen pharmacogenetics moves closer to reality. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97:412-3. PMID 15770000
  12. Higgins MJ, Stearns V. Pharmacogenetics of endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Annu Rev Med 2011 62:281-93. PMID 21226615
  13. Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L, et al. Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010 28:4594-4600. PMID 20855825
  14. Robertson JFR, Bondarenko IM, Trishkina E, et al. Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016 388:2997-3005. PMID 27908454
  15. Bidard FC, Kaklamani VG, Neven P, et al. Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) versus standard endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III EMERALD trial. J Clin Oncol 2022 40:3246-3256. PMID 35584336
  16. Jhaveri KL, Neven P, Casalnuovo ML, et al. Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2025 392:1189-1202. PMID 39660834
  17. Oliveira M, Pominchuk D, Nowecki Z, et al. Camizestrant, a next-generation oral SERD, versus fulvestrant in post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (SERENA-2): a multi-dose, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2024 25:1424-1439. PMID 39481395
  18. Bidard FC, Hardy-Bessard AC, Dalenc F, et al. Switch to fulvestrant and palbociclib versus no switch in advanced breast cancer with rising ESR1 mutation during aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib therapy (PADA-1). Lancet Oncol 2022 23:1367-1377. PMID 36183733
  19. Turner NC, Mayer EL, Park YH, et al. Switching to camizestrant at ESR1 mutation emergence before disease progression during first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (SERENA-6). Lancet Oncol 2026. PMID 42442380
  20. Pan H, Gray R, Braybrooke J, et al. 20-year risks of breast-cancer recurrence after stopping endocrine therapy at 5 years. N Engl J Med 2017 377:1836-1846. PMID 29117498
  21. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, 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. PMID 23219286
  22. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, et al. Extending aromatase-inhibitor adjuvant therapy to 10 years. N Engl J Med 2016 375:209-219. PMID 27264120
  23. Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS, et al. Palbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2016 375:1925-1936. PMID 27959613
  24. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2016 375:1738-1748. PMID 27717303
  25. Goetz MP, Toi M, Huober J, et al. Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results of MONARCH 3. Ann Oncol 2024 35:718-727. PMID 38729566
  26. Sledge GW, Toi M, Neven P, 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). JAMA Oncol 2020 6:116-124. PMID 31563959
  27. Johnston SRD, Harbeck N, Hegg R, et al. Abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for the adjuvant treatment of HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer (monarchE). J Clin Oncol 2020 38:3987-3998. PMID 32954927
  28. Slamon D, Lipatov O, Nowecki Z, et al. Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2024 390:1080-1091. PMID 38507751
  29. Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M, et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012 366:520-529. PMID 22149876
  30. Andre F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2019 380:1929-1940. PMID 31091374
  31. Turner NC, Oliveira M, Howell SJ, et al. Capivasertib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2023 388:2058-2070. PMID 37256976
  32. Sonke GS, van Ommen-Nijhof A, Wortelboer N, et al. Early versus deferred use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer. Nature 2024 636:474-480. PMID 39604725
  33. Wortelboer N, van Ommen-Nijhof A, Konings IR, et al. Overall survival with first-line vs second-line CDK4/6 inhibitor use in advanced breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2026 12:375-383. PMID 41712229
  34. Hershman DL, Kushi LH, Shao T, et al. Early discontinuation and nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy in a cohort of 8,769 early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2010 28:4120-4128. PMID 20585090
  35. Crew KD, Greenlee H, Capodice J, et al. Prevalence of joint symptoms in postmenopausal women taking aromatase inhibitors for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007 25:3877-3883. PMID 17761973
  36. Fribbens C, O'Leary B, Kilburn L, et al. Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016 34:2961-2968. PMID 27269946
  37. Chandarlapaty S, Chen D, He W, et al. Prevalence of ESR1 mutations in cell-free DNA and outcomes in metastatic breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the BOLERO-2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2016 2:1310-1315. PMID 27532364