Optimizing second-line endocrine-based treatment in HR positive HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: a comprehensive expert statement from the Gulf Cooperation Council Region

Optimizing second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is challenged by variations in diagnostic capacity, drug accessibility, comorbidities, and treatment pathways compared with other regions. While international guidelines provide an overarching evidence framework for breast cancer management, their practical application at the regional level often requires adaptation to local healthcare resources. There is an unmet need to optimize the treatment sequencing strategies for patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC in the GCC region through expert guidance. Given this context, a virtual advisory board involving 10 oncologists from the GCC region was convened in November 2024. The panel aimed to review current evidence and develop pragmatic, implementable recommendations for second-line management. This consensus uniquely contextualizes global evidence for GCC-specific healthcare constraints, addressing gaps in diagnostic access, affordability, and real-world feasibility, while providing treatment recommendations that help clinicians refine therapeutic strategies and incorporate patient preferences for improved outcomes. The panel recommends early genomic testing (PIK3CA, AKT, BRCA, ESR1) to guide therapy, prioritizing targeted agents such as oral SERDs and PI3K/AKT inhibitors in second-line sequencing, cautious use of alpelisib in diabetic patients, and incorporating patient preferences through shared decision-making and multidisciplinary care.

1 Introduction

Breast Cancer (BC) represents the most frequent malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related fatalities among women in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region (1). Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-negative) BC represents the most common molecular subtype, accounting for approximately 70% of all BC cases, globally (2). In the GCC region, this subtype similarly constitutes a high proportion of tumors and is characterized by younger age at presentation and a rising incidence, as reported in regional cancer registries and multicountry GCC analyses (3, 4). In a recent study from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), nearly 66% of the 94 patients diagnosed with BC between 2016 and 2018, were found to have HR+ status (5). Another study involving 78 Arab women with BC during 2010 to 2018 revealed that 69.2% of the cases were positive for estrogen receptors and 65.4% for progesterone receptors, respectively (6). Currently, there is limited data available regarding the prevalence and clinical characteristics of HER2-negative BC in the GCC region. This information is crucial for developing region-specific diagnostic and treatment strategies. This subtype may require tailored therapeutic approaches, particularly as resistance to first-line therapies becomes more prominent.

Advances in targeted therapies have expanded second-line options, yet resistance after cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibition remains a significant challenge in decision-making, necessitating the development of effective second-line treatment strategies (7, 8). Newer treatment options including oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs), targeted agents like inhibitors of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)/Ak strain transforming (AKT) pathway, and antibody-drug conjugates like sacituzumab govitecan and trastuzumab deruxtecan have become available. Recent data further inform their role in second-line therapy: the EMERALD trial showed benefit with elacestrant (9, 10), and the SERENA-2 trial demonstrated improved activity of camizestrant compared with fulvestrant (11). TROPiCS-02 demonstrated an overall survival benefit with sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer (12), and DESTINY-Breast06 reported superior progression-free survival for trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with chemotherapy in HER2-low or HER2-ultra-low HR+ mBC (13).While these targeted therapies have led to improved patient outcomes and delayed the time to start chemotherapy, the optimal sequencing strategy for these agents in second-line treatment remains undefined, highlighting the importance of refining treatment approaches for better long-term efficacy.

In the GCC region, like in many developing countries, there is a reliance on international guidelines for BC management but there are significant disparities in healthcare infrastructure, treatment protocols, genetic heterogeneity, patient characteristics, and access to advanced treatments. These disparities point to the unmet need to optimize the treatment strategies for patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC through expert guidance. These guidelines can provide critical guidance in prioritizing available diagnostic and therapeutic modalities specific to the regional context.

The GCC-specific adaptations reflect regional epidemiology and healthcare context. The region also has a high burden of metabolic comorbidities, particularly diabetes, which is clinically relevant for therapies such as alpelisib (14). Pharmacogenomic data in the GCC remain limited, with no large-scale sequencing datasets covering all relevant biomarkers (15). Therefore, our recommendations rely on available epidemiologic evidence, expert consensus, and health-system considerations, while highlighting the need for region-specific genomic research.

The present expert opinion article aims to discuss the currently evolving second-line treatment landscape for HR+/HER2- negative mBC in the GCC region, particularly in light of new emerging treatment options. The experts proposed evidence-based treatment recommendations in the second-line setting, tailored to the region’s healthcare resources, ensuring clinical decisions are aligned with the local healthcare resources while optimizing patient outcomes. While international guidelines inform the clinical evidence base, this consensus statement extends their applicability by incorporating region-specific factors, such as diagnostic availability, drug access, insurance constraints, and real-world feasibility in the GCC, to address clinical decision-making challenges not captured in global guidance.

2 Methodology

An expert panel of 10 oncologists, from 4 different GCC countries (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [n=5], Kuwait [n=1], UAE [n=3], Qatar [n=1]) congregated virtually in November 2024. The panel discussed the evolving diagnostic landscape of HR+/HER2-negative mBC by evaluating the clinical utility of emerging biomarkers, identifying the current challenges and barriers to the adoption of testing strategies and their integration into routine clinical practice in GCC region. The aim was also to gain insights into the evolving treatment paradigm on the future role of ET (Endocrine Therapy) in HR+/HER2-negative mBC specifically in the second-line setting. The panel discussed the management practices along with associated regional challenges. They provided strategic as well as implementable recommendations to enhance biomarker testing, treatment strategies and management of treatment-related toxicities associated with the novel treatment options in HR+/HER2-negative mBC in the GCC region.

A structured questionnaire (Supplementary file) was disseminated to key experts before the advisory board meeting to gain insight into current challenges encountered in integrating biomarker testing in their routine clinical practice and optimizing the second-line treatment options for HR+/HER2-negative mBC. The compiled responses formed the framework for a comprehensive discussion, guiding the flow of deliberations during the meeting. Recommendations were finalized through iterative discussion and informal consensus, with agreement achieved when the majority of panelists supported the proposed approach. Divergent views were resolved through open dialogue. These recommendations are primarily expert-opinion–based, informed by evidence from pivotal randomized trials and supported by real-world data where available; however, the panel did not formally assign ESCAT (ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets) or NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) evidence levels to each recommendation. We present an expert opinion manuscript with recommendations for optimizing the second-line treatment strategies for HR+/HER2-negative mBC.

3 Mechanism of endocrine resistance

While ET remains the mainstay treatment of HR+/HER2-negative mBC, malignant tumors often acquire new mutations or genetic alterations, leading to resistance to ET over time. Various de-novo or acquired resistance mechanisms have been implicated, including dysregulated cell cycle regulation, activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, and alterations in the ER (estrogen receptor) pathway (ESR1 tumor mutations) (16).

3.1 Loss of estrogen receptor expression

Primary (de-novo) resistance to ET is mainly caused by the loss of ER expression (conversion of ER+ to ER−), which occurs in approximately 10% to 20% of the cases (17). These tumors are not responsive to estrogen-driven therapies such as aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Performing biopsy of metastatic tissue at disease progression to evaluate ER status and to guide treatment decisions is crucial.

3.2 Mutations in the estrogen receptor (ESR1)

Activating ESR1tumor mutations, reported in approximately 40% of the patients treated with AIs, are the key drivers of secondary ET resistance in patients with HR+/HER2-negative BCs (18). In the SoFEA and EFECT trials, progression-free survival (PFS) with fulvestrant was comparable between patients harboring ESR1 mutations and those with wild-type tumors, whereas a reduction in PFS associated with ESR1-mutant disease was more apparent with exemestane (19). In PALOMA-3, fulvestrant plus palbociclib demonstrated consistent progression-free and overall survival benefits, irrespective of ESR1 mutation status (20, 21).

3.3 Activation of alternative signaling pathways

Activating mutations in the PIK3CA represent the most frequent mutation type in the advanced HR+/HER2-negative mBC, accounting for nearly 40% of the tumors (22, 23). Recent evidence suggests that these mutations are most commonly reported in the hotspots of H1047R, E545K, E542K, N345K, and H1047L (24–26). Dysregulated signaling through the PI3K pathway is associated with tumorigenesis, disease progression, and resistance to therapy (27). Patients presenting tumors harboring PIK3CA mutations have poor outcomes and are less sensitive to chemotherapy, compared to those with wild-type PIK3CA (23). Additional tumor alterations may include mutations in AKT1 and phosphatase and tensing homolog (PTEN) signaling pathways. Activating AKT1 mutations are present in approximately 7% of the HR+ HER2-negative BC cases, E17K being the most commonly reported alteration, leading to constitutive signaling activation through aberrant localization to the plasma membrane (28). PTEN is the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, and its loss results in the activation of downstream AKT/mTOR signaling (29). Further, mutations in components of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, such as NF1, KRAS, HRAS, BRAF, ERBB2, and EGFR, have been linked to shorter duration of response and occur independent of ESR1 mutations (28). As a result, therapeutic strategies targeting RAS and other key oncoproteins in the MAPK pathway (RAF, ERK, and MEK) hold the potential to overcome endocrine resistance caused by these pathway alterations.

Additional pathological mutations include acquired alterations related to HER2, BRCA, TP53, and other genes responsible for driving tumor progression and therapy resistance. Tumor environment in endocrine resistance encompassing various cellular components, including immune cells, stromal cells, blood vessels, and extracellular matrix, also contribute to endocrine resistance (17).

4 Role of genomic profiling in treatment decisions

Genomic and molecular profiling helps identify actionable mutations and alterations that can guide the choice of subsequent treatments, improving clinical outcomes (27). Identification of PIK3CA mutations allows the use of targeted therapies like alpelisib (a PI3K inhibitor) in combination with letrozole (30). The phase III SOLAR-1 trial demonstrated that the addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant significantly improved PFS in patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR+/HER2-negative mBC, compared to fulvestrant alone (31, 32).Additionally, this finding highlights the importance of targeting the PI3K pathway in the second-line setting.

Moreover, genomic profiling aids in identifying alterations that may influence resistance mechanisms, such as AKT or PTEN mutations, both of which are relevant in selecting combination therapies (33). These alterations can impact the effectiveness of treatments like CDK4/6 inhibitors and guide the use of targeted therapies. In the CAPItello-291 trial, the addition of capivasertib (AKT inhibitor) to fulvestrant resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in PFS in patients with tumors harboring PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN mutations (34).Therefore, tumors in patients with HR+ aBC (advanced breast cancer) harboring PIK3CA/AKT mutations and/or PTEN loss may benefit from combining capivasertib with fulvestrant.

Detection of ESR1 tumor mutations is crucial as it may guide the early transition from an AI-based regimen to fulvestrant, thus optimizing clinical outcomes (35). Evidence suggests that patients with ESR1 tumor mutations receiving fulvestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first-line demonstrate poor outcomes (36). Additionally, phase III EMERALD trial, which demonstrated improved PFS with the oral SERD elacestrant in patients with ESR1 tumor mutations. Based on these findings, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its guidelines to recommend routine ESR1 mutation testing to guide treatment decisions in patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC (37). This revision emphasizes the importance of testing for ESR1 tumor mutations to tailor treatment with therapies like elacestrant, which have shown efficacy in overcoming resistance to standard hormonal therapies. On the other hand, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines consider ESR1 tumor mutation testing as optional (ESCAT II-A), acknowledging its potential role in treatment selection (7). This distinction reflects the evolving understanding of genomic profiling and its impact on therapy decisions, with a growing consensus around personalized treatment strategies.

In a recent study, nearly half of the patients were identified with level 1 actionable genetic mutations (ESCAT level of evidence I/II) using prospective genomic profiling. Identification of BRCA1/2 mutations suggests the need for germline testing, which can determine eligibility for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Notably, the study used targeted sequencing panel covering fewer genes than some commercially available assays, indicating that a smaller panel (focused only on ESCAT LOE I/II genes) would be sufficient for most patients who could benefit from genomic testing in daily practice (38).

Tissue biopsies are traditionally used to characterize metastatic breast cancer (mBC) but are limited by spatial heterogeneity and invasiveness. They help identify mutations like PIK3CA, ESR1, and AKT, which are important for guiding second-line therapy (39). Liquid biopsies are less invasive alternative, analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from blood samples, and can track mutations like ESR1 to guide treatment decisions, such as switching from AIs to fulvestrant. However, liquid biopsy may be less sensitive than tissue biopsy and can produce false negatives, particularly when ctDNA levels are low. A retrospective analytical comparison of tissue and liquid biopsy next-generation sequencing (NGS) data revealed a high positive percent agreement (PPA) for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations in cases with ctDNA tumor fraction (TF) ≥1% (92.5% for TF ≥10% and 97.1% for TF 1% to 10%). However, detection rate for samples with TF <1% was found to be lower (PPA 33.9%) (40). A large-scale United States based study analyzing data from approximately 280 cancer clinics (2011 to 2023) found that the tumors of around 60% of patients exhibited at least one genetic alteration in the first-line of therapy. Notably, ESR1 mutations were present in 8.1% of tissue biopsies and 17.5% of liquid biopsies with a TF of ≥1%. Conversely, rates of PTEN loss were higher with tissue biopsy (4.3%) than liquid biopsy (1% in TF ≥ 1%) (36). Another study examining the concordance between tumor tissue and ctDNA for the detection of oncogenic mutations found high concordance for PIK3CA and AKT1, moderate concordance for ESR1, and low concordance for PTEN. Moreover, a higher number of ESR1 alterations were detected in ctDNA, while PTEN alterations were more commonly found in tumor tissue, suggesting the emergence of acquired ESR1 tumor mutations after estrogen deprivation and highlighting the current limitations of ctDNA assays in detecting PTEN copy number loss (41). These findings suggest the clinical relevance of comprehensive genomic profiling with liquid biopsy for identification of acquired mutations in the second-line.

NGS is a powerful tool that allows for the simultaneous analysis of multiple genes, providing a comprehensive profile of a tumor’s genetic makeup. NGS can detect a wide range of mutations, including PIK3CA, ESR1, AKT, and PTEN and particularly ESR1 mutations, which are associated with resistance to AIs, and in selecting targeted therapies such as elacestrant or alpelisib or capivasertib.

5 Optimizing second-line endocrine-based treatments

5.1 Sequencing strategies

For patients who progress on first-line CDK4/6 inhibitor plus ET, the presence of molecular alterations influences second-line selection. In patients with ER+ mBC, ESR1 tumor mutations have been associated with resistance to AI therapy, accounting for nearly 40% of the acquired resistance to AIs in metastatic settings (42, 43). The frequency of ESR1 tumor alterations tends to increase as the disease progresses through successive lines of treatment, leading to poorer clinical outcomes in patients with HR+ mBC (19, 39, 44). Notably, in the MAINTAIN trial, patients with detectable ESR1 tumor mutations had less benefit from ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant alone (45). Similarly, patients with ER+ BC and germline BRCA mutations may experience a shorter PFS with first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors (46) potentially due to allelic imbalance in RB1 or loss of heterozygosity, which may serve as a potential mechanism of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition in germline BRCA2 carriers (47). Genomic alterations within the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway are found in about 50% of patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC (48, 49), and are recognized as key drivers of resistance to ET and disease progression. Studies have highlighted the correlation between the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors (50–52). Understanding these resistance mechanisms is crucial in guiding second-line treatment choices and determining whether a patient remains sensitive to further endocrine-based therapy or requires a shift to targeted therapies or chemotherapy based approaches (53, 54).

5.2 Monotherapy versus combination approaches

The choice between combination therapy or monotherapy depends on multiple factors, including prior treatment exposure, disease burden, patient preferences, and tolerability considerations.

The fulvestrant monotherapy demonstrated limited benefit in patients who have progressed after receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors plus AI, across several randomized trials (9, 45, 55) and is not typically recommended as a single-agent treatment after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with AI (56, 57). In patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC without targetable tumor mutations and who had a prolonged exposure or slower progression on first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors with ET, a re-challenge with a different CDK4/6 inhibitor may be a viable option (58). The MAINTAIN trial showed significant improvement in PFS when patients were treated with ribociclib after prior CDK4/6 inhibitor plus ET therapy. In contrast, the PACE and PALMIRA trials showed no benefit in terms of PFS or overall survival (OS) when continuing palbociclib beyond progression, indicating that switching CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective due to distinct resistance mechanisms (59, 60). Further, results from the postMONARCH trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of continuing CDK4/6 inhibition with abemaciclib, combined with fulvestrant, following disease progression on a previous CDK4/6 inhibitor (Table 1) (49).

Table 1

Table 1. Summary of evidence from pivotal clinical trials in patients with HR+ HER2-negative Mbc.

Combination therapies including ET with targeted therapies, such as alpelisib and capivasertib, have shown potential in overcoming resistance in HR+/HER2-negative mBC, as evident from the findings of PALOMA-3 and MONARCH 2 trials (7, 58). Similarly, for patients with PIK3CA, PTEN or AKT alterations, AKT inhibitors like capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant is recommended (58). The SOLAR-1 trial showed that combining alpelisib with fulvestrant significantly prolonged PFS in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2-negative mBC who had progressed on prior ET (39). Similarly, the BYLieve trial demonstrated clinical benefit with this combination, especially in patients who progressed on CDK4/6 inhibitors plus AI (66). Additionally, the CAPItello-291 (39) and FAKTION trials (63) demonstrated the efficacy of capivasertib plus fulvestrant for tumors in patients with HR+ mBC harboring PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations who had progressed on prior AI therapy, with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors (Table 1). The EMERALD trial showed that elacestrant significantly improved PFS compared to standard ET in both the overall and ESR1 tumor mutated populations. For patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations and ESR1 tumor mutations, capivasertib plus fulvestrant or elacestrant monotherapy are preferred treatment options, respectively (Table 1) (9). More recently, the EMBER-3 trial showed significant improvement in PFS with imlunestrant compared to standard ET in the patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations (5.5 versus 3.8 months, respectively) but not in the overall population (Hazard Ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72−1.04; P = 0.12). Imlunestrant in combination with abemaciclib resulted in further enhancement in PFS compared to imlunestrant monotherapy, irrespective of the status of ESR1 mutations (9.4 versus 5.5 months, respectively; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44−0.73; P < 0.001) (67).

The OlympiAD and EMBRACA trials demonstrated that PARP inhibitors (olaparib and talazoparib) significantly improve PFS in HER2-negative mBC patients compared to standard chemotherapy. These findings support their use as a viable treatment for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Additionally, PARP inhibitors may also benefit those with germline PALB2 mutations (Table 1) (64, 65, 68, 69).

The BOLERO-2 study showed that everolimus plus exemestane significantly improved PFS in HR+/HER2-negative mBC patients who progressed on AIs, though no OS benefit was observed. The BOLERO-6 trial confirmed that everolimus plus exemestane provided a PFS benefit over everolimus monotherapy, supporting its use in endocrine-based therapy sequences. For patients unable to tolerate this combination, capecitabine offers a viable alternative with similar PFS and OS outcomes (Table 1) (61, 70).

5.3 Testing strategies

Testing for mutations such PIK3CA, AKT1, PTEN is recommended at the time of recurrence or progression in patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC receiving ET (with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors), to determine their eligibility for treatment with capivasertib (PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations) or alpelisib (only for patients with PIK3CA tumor mutations). Given the positive benefit-risk profile demonstrated by PARP inhibitors, olaparib or talazoparib, in OlympiAD (64) and EMBRACA (65) trials respectively, it is important to consider testing for germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in patients with HER2-negative mBC to identify patients who may be candidates for treatment with the PARP inhibitors.

Although testing for PIK3CA, AKT, and BRCA is recommended at diagnosis, comparative data on predictive performance [e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve), Youden’s J] and assay differences between tissue and ctDNA remain limited. Our recommendations therefore rely on biological rationale, guideline alignment, and therapy eligibility. Potential false positives or negatives, particularly with ctDNA at low tumor fractions, should be considered, and confirmatory testing may be needed when results conflict with clinical context. Prospective validation remains an important future priority (71).

The ASCO and ESMO guidelines both emphasize the importance of routine testing for certain biomarkers and mutations in second-line treatment for HR+/HER2-negative mBC (7, 37). The guidelines recommend testing for the emergence of ESR1 tumor mutations after relapse or progression on ET (administered with or without CDK4/6 inhibitor) in patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC to guide the decision to use elacestrant (9).

Exploratory biomarker analyses from the phase III ASCENT trial suggest that higher TROP-2 expression may be associated with numerically greater benefit from sacituzumab govitecan; however, clinically meaningful efficacy was observed across low, intermediate, and high expression subgroups. Accordingly, TROP-2 expression has not been validated as a predictive biomarker, and routine testing is not required for treatment selection (72).

5.4 Management of adverse events

Despite the advancements in the targeted therapies, the key challenge is the safety profile of the novel drugs, which may impact patient adherence and quality of life (QoL). Both alpelisib (PI3K inhibitor) and capivasertib (AKT inhibitor) cause grade 3 or greater adverse events (AEs) including diarrhea (alpelisib [6.7%] versus capivasertib [9.3%]), rash (alpelisib [9.9%] versus capivasertib [12.1%]), and hyperglycemia (alpelisib [36.6%] versus capivasertib [2.3%]) (39, 73). Alpelisib-induced hyperglycemia may be severe and requires proactive monitoring of glucose levels, with metformin recommended for prevention and has shown to significantly decrease the occurrence of grade 3 or higher hyperglycemia in the phase II METALLICA (74) study.

Additionally, newer targeted therapies like elacestrant (a SERD) cause most common gastrointestinal AEs like nausea (35%) and vomiting and fatigue (19% each) (9, 10). Olaparib reported AEs of anemia (40.0%), neutropenia (27.3%), nausea (58.0%), vomiting (32.2%), fatigue (29.8%), diarrhea (20.5%) and hematologic AEs (75). Management includes antiemetics for nausea, blood transfusions, growth factors or dose modifications for anemia and neutropenia and anti-diarrheal medications for diarrhea. Fatigue can be managed through dietary changes, improved sleep, psychosocial support and psychostimulants as required (76, 77).

Several clinical trials have evaluated patient reported outcomes with the novel targeted agents. For instance, the Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL and functional status were found to be maintained from baseline among the patients treated with alpelisib+ fulvestrant in the SOLAR-1 trial. Moreover, the time to deterioration (TTD) of 10% in GHS/QoL and functional status was comparable to placebo group (62). In the CAPItello-291 trial, the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant not only improved PFS but also demonstrated delayed deterioration in patient reported QoL (39), a finding that contrasts with the QoL outcomes observed with alpelisib. While there was no clinically meaningful difference in functional and symptoms scales for elacestrant and SoC groups in the EMERALD trial, the incidence of very severe nausea (4% versus 14.3%, respectively) and severe vomiting (9.1% versus half, respectively) was relatively lower with elacestrant, compared to SoC, along with numerically better outcomes for self-care, mobility, and usual activities (78). Further, the OlympiAD trial showed statistically significant improvements in GHS/QoL from baseline with olaparib (P = 0.0035) and TTD (HR, 0.44 [0.25-0.77; P = 0.004], however, nausea/vomiting symptom score was worse in the olaparib group (79). Aligned with these results, talazoparib outperformed chemotherapy, with significant benefit in terms of GHS/QoL scores, TTD, and multiple cancer-related symptoms and functions (80).

Results from a German study exploring patient preferences for the treatment of locally advanced or mBC, revealed that QoL (defined as physical mobility and agility) was identified as the key determining factor influencing therapeutic decisions in the second-line (utility score of 19.4%), followed by OS (15.2%) and PFS (14.4%) (81). Additionally, a recent multicentric online survey highlighted a disconnect between healthcare providers and patients regarding the importance of QoL discussions and the impact of AEs on treatment outcomes (82). Regular assessment of patient preferences using validated questionnaires or structured interviews may help physicians monitor treatment efficacy and safety profile, thus allowing for timely adjustments if needed (83).

The panel reviewed validated QoL instruments, including EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ-C30 with the updated QLQ-BR42 breast module, FACT-B (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast), and EQ-5D-5L (EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level). No single tool was formally endorsed for routine GCC practice; instead, centers may select instruments based on feasibility, workflow, and whether utility values are needed for cost-effectiveness analyses (84–87).

6 Expert panel recommendations

Based on the existing literature and clinical practice, the expert panel has delineated practical recommendations for genomic testing (Box 1), treatment sequencing in the second-line (Box 2; Figure 1), and patient-centered approaches (Box 3) for effective management of HR+ HER2-negative mBC in the GCC region.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Algorithm for optimal selection of second-line treatment strategies in HR+ HER2-negative mBC. ADC, antibody-drug conjugates; AI, aromatase inhibitor; AKT, Ak strain transforming; BRCA, BReast CAncer gene; CDK, cyclin-dependent kinase; ESR, estrogen receptor; ET, endocrine therapy; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR, hormone receptor; PARP, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase; PD, disease progression; PFS, progression-free survival; PIK3CA, phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha; PTEN, Phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome 10; T-DXd, trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Box 1. Expert recommendations for genomic testing in the second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC

● Testing for basic biomarkers (e.g., PIK3CA, AKT, BRCA) is recommended at diagnosis which will enable immediate readiness for subsequent treatments if progression occurs, without the need for additional testing delays.

● For testing platforms, liquid biopsy is preferred for detecting mutations such as ESR1 and PIK3CA after progression on first-line therapy, while tissue biopsy is recommended when liquid biopsy results are negative or when the disease burden is low, and no clinical signs of progression are observed.

● Testing for PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN mutations at the time of recurrence or upon disease progression on ET (either with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors) to determine their eligibility for treatment with capivasertib (PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations) or alpelisib (only for patients with PIK3CA tumor mutations).

● Testing for germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations at first-line or during adjuvant setting can be considered to identify suitable candidates for treatment with the PARP inhibitors to avoid any delays in treatment decisions.

● Early testing for ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations that may be acquired during treatment is recommended after progression on first-line treatment.

● Testing for the emergence of ESR1 tumor mutations is recommended to guide the decision to use elacestrant after relapses or progression on ET (administered with or without CDK4/6 inhibitor for >12 months).

● Repeat testing of ESR1 tumor mutations could be considered at later lines if a patient is still considered for endocrine treatment.

Box 2. Summary of expert recommendations for second-line treatment sequencing in patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC based on common clinical scenarios

● Combination therapy of CDK4/6 inhibitors and hormonal therapy is the standard first-line approach for patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC, particularly after progression on initial ET, in patients without imminent organ failure.

● When the disease progresses on AIs and there is visceral metastasis, switching to fulvestrant in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors is recommended to improve outcomes. Patients who progress early on CDK 4/6 inhibitors (within the first year) may have PIK3CA-dependent tumors and are best targeted with combination of a PI3K inhibitor/AKT inhibitor (e.g., alpelisib/capivasertib) with ET.

● For patients with tumors harboring PTEN or AKT mutations, AKT inhibitors like capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant is recommended.

● In patients with ESR1 tumor mutations with prolonged duration of ET (> 12 months), switching to SERDs such as elacestrant is recommended.

● Patients without targetable tumor mutations who have had prolonged exposure and slower progression on first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors with ET, re-challenge with a different CDK4/6 inhibitor may be considered.

● Patients who show rapid progression or resistance with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line therapy, re-challenge with other CDK 4/6 inhibitors may not be effective.

● For patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumors who experience progression on a prior ET including an AI, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, treatment with alpelisib plus fulvestrant is preferred. However, careful screening and management of common toxicities with alpelisib like hyperglycemia are required.

● In the Gulf region, where diabetes is prevalent, alpelisib should be used cautiously, with careful blood glucose management and possible referral to a diabetologist.

● Capivasertib has a superior safety profile than alpelisib and can be a preferred treatment option for patients with PIK3CA tumor mutations.

● Capivasertib plus ET is recommended for patients progressing on previous AI therapy (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor) with tumors harboring PIK3CA or AKT1 or PTEN alterations.

● In patients with coexisting tumor mutations (ESR1 and PIK3CA), it is preferable to consider capivasertib (AKT inhibitor) to target the PIK3CA mutation, followed by elacestrant. Individualized consideration is required for each case.

● For BRCA-mutated patients, PARP inhibitor monotherapy (olaparib or talazoparib) is considered a viable treatment option. Additionally, it may be considered for individuals with germline PALB2 mutations.

● Patients with visceral metastases (without signs of visceral crisis) can be considered for treatment with the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitor + ET, before resorting to chemotherapy.

● For patients with tumors without relevant mutations, fulvestrant plus everolimus or chemotherapy is to be considered. Fulvestrant monotherapy is usually not recommended due to limited efficacy.

● In patients with continued disease progression following second-line therapy with the combination of targeted agents and CDK 4/6 inhibitor, treatment is maintained at the end-stage, potentially with capecitabine or other chemotherapy agents, depending on the response to treatment.

● For tumors with HER2 low or ultra-low expression, alternative therapies such as antibody-drug conjugates (T-DXd and sacituzumab govitecan) or chemotherapy may be considered. Additionally, these treatment options may be beneficial for patients who show rapid disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitor therapy, particularly those experiencing progression within 6 months of initiating first-line ET+CDK 4/6 inhibitor or recurrence ≤24 months following adjuvant ET.

Box 3. Expert recommendations for patient-centered approaches

● Engaging patients in shared decision-making by discussing options, risks, benefits, and personal preferences, ensuring their values are incorporated into the treatment plan.

● Developing individualized therapies based on the patient’s genetic profile (e.g., testing for PIK3CA, BRCA, or ESR1 mutations) to ensure the most effective treatment.

● Regular assessments of QoL to ensure that treatment plans align with the patient’s physical, emotional, and social well-being.

● Engaging a multidisciplinary team (oncologists, nurses, psychologists, nutritionists) to address all aspects of the patient’s health and well-being, ensuring a holistic approach to care.

7 Access and implementation challenges in the GCC region

7.1 Barriers to the availability of targeted therapies and diagnostics

Access to molecular diagnostics in the Gulf region for HR+/HER2-negative mBC faces few challenges and disparities in availability, affordability, and consistency. Many hospitals in the GCC region lack centralized or in-house laboratories for advanced molecular testing like NGS. As a result, these facilities rely on external laboratories funded by pharmaceutical companies or send out samples to international labs for NGS testing. In countries like Qatar, NGS and single-gene testing capabilities are available in major cancer centers. In addition, liquid biopsy tests like Guardant 360 testing (advanced BC) and Guardant Reveal testing (early BC) are provided free of cost to all Qatari nationals, making these tests more accessible. In Saudi Arabia, testing for BRCA, ESR1, and PIK3CA mutations is widely available in public hospitals either through hospital-funded services or through a company that supports testing. However, testing for other mutations like PTEN and AKT is not as readily accessible. In UAE, germline BRCA testing is available in-house at the public sector hospitals with government coverage available for UAE nationals (local patients). In the private sector, molecular testing is covered under insurance coverage; however, some group insurance policies deny coverage, limiting access for certain patients. Another major hurdle is the absence of centralized or in-house laboratories for NGS testing in many hospitals across the GCC region. In Kuwait, patient samples are often handled in-house with available tissue and liquid biopsy NGS platforms, which may decrease the turnaround time. However, access to newer drugs like capivasertib and elacestrant, however, restricts the number of patients who can benefit from targeted therapies.

Published cost-effectiveness analyses (88, 89) show substantial heterogeneity across health systems due to differences in economic assumptions, methodological approaches, and willingness-to-pay thresholds. Based on this, the panel recommends locally adapted budget-impact modeling that incorporates GCC-specific unit costs, EQ-5D–based utility values, and scenario analyses reflecting variations in insurance coverage. Although no formal pharmacoeconomic modeling was performed, the panel recognized cost and coverage constraints as major determinants of real-world feasibility and emphasized aligning treatment selection with local affordability and access considerations.

7.2 Strategies to improve access to precision medicine

Reflecting on these challenges, the experts recommended improving accessibility to molecular testing in the region. Establishing a centralized reference laboratory to facilitate the implementation of standardized testing protocols, ensuring greater consistency of results. Additionally, the availability of in-house testing capabilities for PIK3CA, AKT, PTEN and BRCA testing is critical for guiding treatment decisions, streamlining the process, and reducing the turnaround time. Localized testing may help facilitate research initiatives at the national level and contribute to the improvement of clinical effectiveness data. Considering that the PIK3CA mutations tend to remain consistent from first-line to second-line treatments, the ready availability of PIK3CA test results at the time of first-line treatment will help ensure a smooth transition if a change in therapy is required. While there may be instances of acquired mutations during treatment, early testing helps with preparedness and timely adjustments to the treatment plan.

8 Limitations

This consensus reflects input from a small expert panel from the GCC and was not developed through a formal guideline methodology or structured evidence-grading system, which may limit its generalizability. Biomarker predictive performance, pharmacoeconomic modeling, and GCC-specific epidemiologic or genomic data could not be systematically assessed due to limited available evidence, so several recommendations rely on expert opinion and real-world feasibility considerations. Prospective regional studies are needed to validate and refine these guidance statements.

9 Conclusion

In the evolving therapeutic landscape of HR+/HER2-negative mBC, optimizing second-line treatment requires a strategic approach that enhances survival while maintaining safety and QoL. Multiple factors including disease burden, prior therapy response, treatment duration, and patient characteristics should guide treatment selection and sequencing strategies. Additionally, regional considerations such as drug availability, accessibility, cost, and regulatory approval also influence therapy selection. While current testing for mutations such as BRCA and PIK3CA is essential for personalized treatment, several challenges hinder the effectiveness and accessibility of molecular testing including limited availability of testing platforms for mutations like PTEN, AKT, and ESR1, high costs, and limited insurance coverage. The proposed treatment algorithm may assist clinicians in refining therapeutic strategies while incorporating patient preferences and real-world feasibility for improved outcomes in the second-line treatment strategies for patients with HR+/HER2-negative mBC in the GCC region.

Author contributions

AAs: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AKA: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AAt: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AAw: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AC: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FC: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HA: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HM: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SE: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ST: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Medical writing assistance for this manuscript is funded by AstraZeneca FZ LLC. The authors declare that this study received funding from AstraZeneca. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Parul Rishi and Dr Lakshmi Sravanthi Mukku of Fortrea Scientific Pvt. Ltd. for medical writing support in accordance with Good Publication Practice 2022 guidelines.

Conflict of interest

AAs, AKA, AAt, AAw, AC, FC, HA, HM, SE, and ST have received honoraria and meeting support from AstraZeneca. AAs also reports relationships with Pfizer and MSD. HA has received additional honoraria or meeting support from Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Menarini Stemline, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Menarini Stemline. HM has received support from Menarini Stemline and served on advisory boards for both AstraZeneca and Menarini Stemline. SE reports additional relationships with Novartis, Menarini Stemline, and Roche.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1706670/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Alessy SA, Alqahtani SA, Vignat J, Abuhmaidan A, Basmi AEL, Al Lawati N, et al. The current and future cancer burden in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Cancer Med. (2024) 13:e70141. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70141

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Female Breast Cancer Subtypes — Cancer Stat Facts. Available online at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast-subtypes.html (Accessed February 5, 2025).

Google Scholar

3. Ramadan MM, Alkhatabi HA, Aboalola D, Alaa S, and Alsiary RA. Burden, and trends of breast cancer along with attributable risk factors in Gulf Cooperation Council countries from 1990 to 2019 and its projections. PloS One. (2025) 20:e0331198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331198

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Al-Shamsi HO, Abdelwahed N, Abyad A, Abu-Gheida I, Afrit M, Abu ElFuol T, et al. Breast cancer in the arabian gulf countries. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15:5398. doi: 10.3390/cancers15225398

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Bendardaf R, Saheb Sharif-Askari F, Saheb Sharif-Askari N, Yousuf Guraya S, A AlMadhi S, and Abusnana S. Incidence and clinicopathological features of breast cancer in the northern emirates: experience from sharjah breast care center. Int J Womens Health. (2020) 12:893–9. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S266335

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Al-Shamsi HO, Abu-Gheida I, Abdulsamad AS, AlAwadhi A, Alrawi S, Musallam KM, et al. Molecular spectra and frequency patterns of somatic mutations in arab women with breast cancer. Oncol. (2021) 26:e2086–9. doi: 10.1002/onco.13916

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. ESMO ​Metastatic Breast Cancer Living Guideline | ESMO. Available online at: https://www.esmo.org/living-guidelines/esmo-metastatic-breast-cancer-living-guideline/er-positive-her2-negative-breast-cancer (Accessed January 31, 2025).

Google Scholar

8. Referenced with permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines^®) for Breast Cancer V.4.2025. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc (2025). Available online at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_blocks.pdf. All rights reserved. NCCNTo view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to NCCN.org.

Google Scholar

9. Bidard F-C, Kaklamani VG, Neven P, Streich G, Montero AJ, Forget F, et al. Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III EMERALD Trial. J Clin Oncol. (2022) 40:3246–56. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00338

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Bardia A, Cortés J, Bidard F-C, Neven P, Garcia-Sáenz J, Aftimos P, et al. Elacestrant in ER+, HER2- Metastatic breast cancer with ESR1-mutated tumors: subgroup analyses from the phase III EMERALD trial by prior duration of endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor and in clinical subgroups. Clin Cancer Res. (2024) 30:4299–309. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-24-1073

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Oliveira M, Pominchuk D, Nowecki Z, Hamilton E, Kulyaba Y, Andabekov T, 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) 25:1424–39. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00387-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Rugo HS, Bardia A, Marmé F, Cortés J, Schmid P, Loirat D, et al. Overall survival with sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TROPiCS-02): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. (2023) 402:1423–33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01245-X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Bardia A, Hu X, Dent R, Yonemori K, Barrios CH, O’Shaughnessy JA, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan after endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. (2024) 391:2110–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2407086

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Shanbhag NM, Ameri MA, Alharmoodi F, Almheiri M, and Alblooshi M. Analysis of Comorbidities in Breast Cancer Patients in the United Arab Emirates (UAE): Diabetes and Breast Cancer: A detailed examination. Int J Innovat Res Med Sci. (2024) 9. Available online at: https://ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/1829 (Accessed December 9, 2025).

Google Scholar

15. Abou Tayoun AN, Fakhro KA, Alsheikh-Ali A, and Alkuraya FS. Genomic medicine in the middle east. Genome Med. (2021) 13:184. doi: 10.1186/s13073-021-01003-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Ballinger TJ, Meier JB, and Jansen VM. Current landscape of targeted therapies for hormone-receptor positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer. Front Oncol. (2018) 8:308. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00308

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Raheem F, Karikalan SA, Batalini F, El Masry A, and Mina L. Metastatic ER+ Breast cancer: mechanisms of resistance and future therapeutic approaches. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:16198. doi: 10.3390/ijms242216198

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Venetis K, Pepe F, Pescia C, Cursano G, Criscitiello C, Frascarelli C, et al. ESR1 mutations in HR+/HER2-metastatic breast cancer: Enhancing the accuracy of ctDNA testing. Cancer Treat Rev. (2023) 121:102642. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102642

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Turner NC, Swift C, Kilburn L, Fribbens C, Beaney M, Garcia-Murillas I, et al. ESR1 mutations and overall survival on fulvestrant versus exemestane in advanced hormone receptor–positive breast cancer: A combined analysis of the phase III soFEA and EFECT trials. Clin Cancer Res. (2020) 26:5172–7. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0224

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Cristofanilli M, Rugo HS, Im S-A, Slamon DJ, Harbeck N, Bondarenko I, et al. Overall survival with palbociclib and fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2– ABC: updated exploratory analyses of PALOMA-3, a double-blind, phase III randomized study. Clin Cancer Res. (2022) 28:3433–42. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0305

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Cristofanilli M, DeMichele A, Giorgetti C, Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Im S-A, et al. Predictors of prolonged benefit from palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in PALOMA-3. Eur J Cancer. (2018) 104:21–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Anderson EJ, Mollon LE, Dean JL, Warholak TL, Aizer A, Platt EA, et al. A systematic review of the prevalence and diagnostic workup of PIK3CA mutations in HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer. Int J Breast Cancer. (2020) 2020:3759179. doi: 10.1155/2020/3759179

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Mosele MF, Westphalen CB, Stenzinger A, Barlesi F, Bayle A, Bièche I, et al. Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with advanced cancer in 2024: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Ann Oncol. (2024) 35:588–606. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.04.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Martínez-Sáez O, Chic N, Pascual T, Adamo B, Vidal M, González-Farré B, et al. Frequency and spectrum of PIK3CA somatic mutations in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. (2020) 22:45. doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01284-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Wan K, Wang YA, Kaper M, Fritzemeier M, and Babbar N. The prevalence of PIK3CA mutations in HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer (BELLE2, BELLE3 and BOLERO2 clinical trials). Ann Oncol. (2018) 29:viii95. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy272.289

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Peixoto A, Cirnes L, Carvalho AL, Andrade MJ, Brito MJ, Borralho P, et al. Evaluation of PIK3CA mutations in advanced ER+/HER2-breast cancer in Portugal – U-PIK Project. Front Mol Biosci. (2023) 10:1082915. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1082915

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Fillbrunn M, Signorovitch J, André F, Wang I, Lorenzo I, Ridolfi A, et al. PIK3CA mutation status, progression and survival in advanced HR + /HER2- breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published clinical trials. BMC Cancer. (2022) 22:1002. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10078-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Razavi P, Chang MT, Xu G, Bandlamudi C, Ross DS, Vasan N, et al. The genomic landscape of endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancers. Cancer Cell. (2018) 34:427–438.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.08.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Fanucci K, Giordano A, Erick T, Tolaney SM, and Sammons S. Practical treatment strategies and novel therapies in the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (HR+/HER2–) advanced breast cancer. ESMO Open. (2024) 9:103997. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103997

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Juric D, Turner N, Chia S, Drullinsky P, et al. Abstract PD2-07: Alpelisib + letrozole in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) previously treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + fulvestrant: BYLieve study results. Cancer Res. (2021) 81:PD2–07. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS20-PD2-07

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Leenhardt F, Alexandre M, and Jacot W. Alpelisib for the treatment of PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother. (2021) 22:667–75. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2021.1873952

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. André F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, Campone M, Loibl S, Rugo HS, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. (2019) 380:1929–40. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813904

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. McCubrey JA, Steelman LS, Chappell WH, Abrams SL, Montalto G, Cervello M, et al. Mutations and deregulation of ras/raf/MEK/ERK and PI3K/PTEN/akt/mTOR cascades which alter therapy response. Oncotarget. (2012) 3:954. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.652

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Hu X, Zhang Q, Sun T, Xiong H, Li W, Teng Y, et al. Capivasertib plus fulvestrant in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: phase 3 CAPItello-291 study extended Chinese cohort. Nat Commun. (2025) 16:4324. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59210-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Brett JO, Spring LM, Bardia A, and Wander SA. ESR1 mutation as an emerging clinical biomarker in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res: BCR. (2021) 23:85. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01462-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Bhave MA, Quintanilha JCF, Tukachinsky H, Li G, Scott T, Ross JS, et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of ESR1, PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN in HR(+)HER2(–) metastatic breast cancer: prevalence along treatment course and predictive value for endocrine therapy resistance in real-world practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2024) 207:599–609. doi: 10.1007/s10549-024-07376-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Burstein HJ, DeMichele A, Somerfield MR, Henry NL, and Biomarker Testing and Endocrine and Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer Expert Panels. Testing for ESR1 mutations to guide therapy for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer: ASCO guideline rapid recommendation update. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:3423–5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.00638

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. van Geelen CT, Savas P, Teo ZL, Luen SJ, Weng C-F, Ko Y-A, et al. Clinical implications of prospective genomic profiling of metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. (2020) 22:91. doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01328-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Turner NC, Oliveira M, Howell SJ, Dalenc F, Cortes J, Gomez Moreno HL, et al. Capivasertib in hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. New Engl J Med. (2023) 388:2058–70. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2214131

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Vasan N, Chaki M, Benrashid M, Puri S, Sivakumar S, and Sokol E. Concordance between tissue (tumor DNA) and liquid (ctDNA) biopsy next-generation sequencing (NGS) data in detection of PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN alterations in breast cancer: A retrospective analysis. JCO. (2024) 42:e15033–3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.e15033

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Tsai C, An Ja-R, Cabel L, Brannon AR, Moiso E, Gedvilaite E, et al. 418P Concordance of PI3K-AKT pathway alterations between tumor and ctDNA in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. (2024) 35:S395–6. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.08.366

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Fribbens C, O’Leary B, Kilburn L, Hrebien S, Garcia-Murillas I, Beaney M, et al. Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:2961–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.3061

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Spoerke JM, Gendreau S, Walter K, Qiu J, Wilson TR, Savage H, et al. Heterogeneity and clinical significance of ESR1 mutations in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients receiving fulvestrant. Nat Commun. (2016) 7:11579. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11579

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Takeshita T, Yamamoto Y, Yamamoto-Ibusuki M, Tomiguchi M, Sueta A, Murakami K, et al. Clinical significance of plasma cell-free DNA mutations in PIK3CA, AKT1, and ESR1 gene according to treatment lines in ER-positive breast cancer. Mol Cancer. (2018) 17:67. doi: 10.1186/s12943-018-0808-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Kalinsky K, Accordino MK, Chiuzan C, Mundi PS, Sakach E, Sathe C, et al. Randomized phase II trial of endocrine therapy with or without ribociclib after progression on cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer: MAINTAIN trial. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:4004–13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02392

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Safonov A, Bandlamudi C, de Lara PT, Ferraro E, Derakhshan F, Will M, et al. Abstract GS4-08: Comprehensive genomic profiling of patients with breast cancer identifies germline-somatic interactions mediating therapy resistance. Cancer Res. (2022) 82:GS4–08. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS21-GS4-08

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Jhaveri K and Marmé F. Current and emerging treatment approaches for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. (2024) 123:102670. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102670

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Prasad D, Baldelli E, Blais EM, Davis J, El Gazzah E, Mueller C, et al. Functional activation of the AKT-mTOR signalling axis in a real-world metastatic breast cancer cohort. Br J Cancer. (2024) 131:1543–54. doi: 10.1038/s41416-024-02852-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Kalinsky K, Bianchini G, Hamilton E, Graff SL, Park KH, Jeselsohn R, et al. Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 inhibition: results from the phase III postMONARCH trial. J Clin Oncol. (2024) 43:1101–12. doi: 10.1200/JCO-24-02086

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Herrera-Abreu MT, Palafox M, Asghar U, Rivas MA, Cutts RJ, Garcia-Murillas I, et al. Early adaptation and acquired resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:2301–13. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0728

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Abstract P3-04-24: Identification of preclinical mechanisms driving acquired resistance to selective ERa degraders (SERDs), CDK4/6 inhibitors, or to combinations of both agents | Cancer Research | American Association for Cancer Research. Available online at: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/77/4_Supplement/P3-04-24/623800/Abstract-P3-04-24-Identification-of-preclinical (Accessed February 3, 2025).

Google Scholar

52. Jansen VM, Bhola NE, Bauer JA, Formisano L, Lee K-M, Hutchinson KE, et al. Kinome-wide RNA interference screen reveals a role for PDK1 in acquired resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition in ER-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. (2017) 77:2488–99. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2653

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Hartkopf AD, Grischke E-M, and Brucker SY. Endocrine-resistant breast cancer: mechanisms and treatment. Breast Care (Basel). (2020) 15:347–54. doi: 10.1159/000508675

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Milani A, Geuna E, Mittica G, and Valabrega G. Overcoming endocrine resistance in metastatic breast cancer: Current evidence and future directions. World J Clin Oncol. (2014) 5:990–1001. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i5.990

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, Jerzak KJ, Song X, Decker T, et al. VERONICA: randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors - efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. (2022) 28:3256–67. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Agostini M, Mandrioli A, and Zamagni C. Fulvestrant monotherapy after CDK4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer patients: A real-life experience. Cancers. (2024) 16:4179. doi: 10.3390/cancers16244179

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Selecting Second-Line Therapy for Metastatic HR-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer. Available online at: https://dailynews.ascopubs.org/do/10.1200/ADN.23.201540/full (Accessed February 3, 2025).

Google Scholar

58. Makhlin I, Fallowfield L, Henry NL, Burstein HJ, Somerfield MR, and DeMichele A. Targeted therapies, sequencing strategies, and beyond in metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer: ASCO guideline clinical insights. JCO Oncol Pract. (2024) 0:OP–24-00547. doi: 10.1200/OP-24-00547

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Mayer EL, Ren Y, Wagle N, Mahtani R, Ma C, DeMichele A, et al. PACE: A randomized phase II study of fulvestrant, palbociclib, and avelumab after progression on cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor and aromatase inhibitor for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2024) 42:2050–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01940

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Llombart Cussac A, Medioni J, Colleoni MA, Ettl J, Schmid P, Macpherson I, et al. 387TiP - Palbociclib rechallenge in hormone receptor (HR)[+]/HER2[-] advanced breast cancer (ABC). PALMIRA trial. Ann Oncol. (2019) 30:v141. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz242.082

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Ciruelos EM, Rugo HS, Mayer IA, Levy C, Forget F, Delgado Mingorance JI, 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) 39:2005–15. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01139

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Howell SJ, Casbard A, Carucci M, Ingarfield K, Butler R, Morgan S, et al. Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (FAKTION): overall survival, updated progression-free survival, and expanded biomarker analysis from a randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. (2022) 23:851–64. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00284-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Robson M, Im S-A, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. (2017) 377:523–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Gonçalves A, Lee K-H, et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. (2018) 379:753–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Neven P, Ciruelos EM, Lerebours F, Ruiz-Borrego M, Drullinsky P, Prat A, et al. Alpelisib + endocrine therapy in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, advanced breast cancer: Analysis of all 3 cohorts of the BYLieve study. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:1078. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.1078

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Jhaveri KL, Neven P, Casalnuovo ML, Kim S-B, Tokunaga E, Aftimos P, et al. Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. (2024) 392:1189–202. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2410858

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Gennari A, André F, Barrios CH, Cortés J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer☆. Ann Oncol. (2021) 32:1475–95. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.019

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Henry NL, Somerfield MR, Dayao Z, Elias A, Kalinsky K, McShane LM, et al. Biomarkers for systemic therapy in metastatic breast cancer: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. (2022) 40:3205–21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01063

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Sameer CA, Shah M, Nandy D, and Gupta R. Genomic index of sensitivity to chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2023) 24:2043–53. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.6.2043

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Bardia A, Tolaney SM, Punie K, Loirat D, Oliveira M, Kalinsky K, et al. Biomarker analyses in the phase III ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. (2021) 32:1148–56. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Rugo HS, Oliveira M, Howell SJ, Dalenc F, Cortes J, Gomez HL, et al. Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: characterization, time course, and management of frequent adverse events from the phase III CAPItello-291 study. ESMO Open. (2024) 9:103697. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103697

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Llombart-Cussac A, Pérez-Garcia JM, Borrego MR, Tolosa P, Blanch S, Fernández-Ortega A, et al. Preventing alpelisib-related hyperglycaemia in HR+/HER2–/PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer using metformin (METALLICA): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. eClinicalMedicine. (2024) 71:102520. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102520

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Litton JK, Hurvitz SA, Mina LA, Rugo HS, Lee K-H, Gonçalves A, 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) 31:1526–35. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2098

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Hurvitz SA, Gonçalves A, Rugo HS, Lee K-H, Fehrenbacher L, Mina LA, et al. Talazoparib in patients with a germline BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer: detailed safety analyses from the phase III EMBRACA trial. Oncologist. (2020) 25:e439–50. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0493

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Cortés J, Bidard FC, Bardia A, Kaklamani VG, Vlachaki I, Tonini G, et al. 188O EMERALD trial analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with ER+/HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) comparing oral elacestrant vs standard of care (SoC) endocrine therapy. ESMO Open. (2023) 8:101377. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101377

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Robson M, Ruddy KJ, Im S-A, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer receiving olaparib versus chemotherapy in the OlympiAD trial. Eur J Cancer. (2019) 120:20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.06.023

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Ettl J, Quek RGW, Lee K-H, Rugo HS, Hurvitz S, Gonçalves A, et al. Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial. Ann Oncol. (2018) 29:1939–47. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy257

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Reinisch M, Marschner N, Otto T, Korfel A, Stoffregen C, and Wöckel A. Patient preferences: results of a german adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (Market research study sponsored by eli lilly and company) in patients on palliative treatment for advanced breast cancer. Breast Care. (2021) 16:491. doi: 10.1159/000513139

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Cardoso F, Rihani J, Harmer V, Harbeck N, Casas A, Rugo HS, et al. Quality of life and treatment-related side effects in patients with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer: findings from a multicountry survey. Oncol. (2023) 28:856–65. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad207

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Bland KA, Mustafa R, and McTaggart-Cowan H. Patient preferences in metastatic breast cancer care: A scoping review. Cancers. (2023) 15:4331. doi: 10.3390/cancers15174331

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. (1993) 85:365–76. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Bjelic-Radisic V, Cardoso F, Weis J, Velikova G, Cameron DA, Brain EGC, et al. 270MO An international update of the EORTC questionnaire for assessing quality of life in breast cancer patients: Results of the validation study phase IV EORTC QLQ-BR42. ESMO Open. (2024) 9:103329. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103329

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

86. FACT-B. FACIT group. Available online at: https://www.facit.org/measures/fact-b (Accessed December 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

87. User guides. EuroQol. Available online at: https://euroqol.org/information-and-support/documentation/user-guides/ (Accessed December 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

88. Al-Ziftawi NH, Shafie AA, and Mohamed Ibrahim MI. Cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer medications use in developing countries: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. (2021) 21:655–66. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1794826

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

89. AlRuthia Y, Aldallal S, Al-Abdulkarim HA, Al-jedai A, Almudaiheem H, Hamad A, et al. Healthcare systems and health economics in GCC countries: informing decision-makers from the perspective of the Gulf health economics association. Front Public Health. (2025) 13:1510401. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1510401

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar