Elacestrant plus alpelisib in an ESR1 and PIK3CA co-mutated and heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer: the first case report for combination efficacy and safety

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women, and hormone receptor (HR)-positive subtype makes up the majority of all cases. The standard of care in HR⁺/HER2⁻ metastatic BC (MBC) is endocrine therapy (ET) plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). ESR1 mutations could impair the clinical efficacy of the ETs. Similarly, PIK3CA mutations may serve as a negative prognostic marker. Furthermore, MBC is challenging to treat despite new drug approvals. Our patient received multiple lines of ET ± CDK4/6i and chemotherapy but persistently progressed after each or stopped the treatment due to adverse events. Here we showed for the first time that an all-oral combination of elacestrant plus alpelisib was feasible, tolerable, and clinically active in an ESR1 and PIK3CA co-mutated and heavily pretreated patient. We achieved a remarkable response in the metastatic lesions with minor toxicity issues. This case highlights the importance of utilizing up-to-date therapeutic agents and reactive decision-making during personalized cancer treatment.

Keywords

alpelisib cancer genomics case report elacestrant HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD)

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer type in the United States and worldwide according to estimates by ACS¹ and GLOBOCAN,² respectively. Hormone receptor (HR)-positive patients constitute 75%–80% of all BC cases. The standard of care (SOC) in HR⁺/HER2⁻ metastatic patients is endocrine therapy (ET) in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors.^3,4 However, targeted treatment options after progression on the SOC are quite limited, and their sequencing for the optimum response is not clearly defined.^5,6

ESR1 mutations can lead to acquired resistance to ETs, but are especially prevalent after progression on prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment, even more prevalent after AI plus CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) and in the metastatic setting (de novo: 3.9% vs up to 55% posttreatment).^7–10 As these mutations could be also associated with worse survival, new treatment strategies need to be explored. The recent approval of elacestrant, an orally available selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), for ER⁺/HER2⁻, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) patients exemplifies the success of such a strategy. PIK3CA is also frequently altered and is an actionable target in BC. Although some studies discovered PIK3CA mutation as a negative prognostic marker following the SOC, PI3K-alpha specific inhibitor alpelisib together with fulvestrant was not approved in the first line but following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen in HR⁺/HER2⁻, PIK3CA-mutated, A/MBC patients. These alterations could limit the efficacy of endocrine and targeted therapies. However, there are currently no data regarding the safety and clinical activity for combination of elacestrant and inhibitors against PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and/or CDK4/6 in the estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ESR1 and PIK3CA co-mutated BC patients, although ongoing phase Ib/II ELEVATE trial (NCT05563220¹¹) reported that the evaluated combinations (such as elacestrant plus alpelisib) were consistent with the known safety profiles of tested drugs, such as alpelisib.

Here, to our knowledge, we report the first case of safety and efficacy of all-oral elacestrant and alpelisib combination in a heavily pretreated, ESR1 and PIK3CA co-mutated HR⁺/HER2⁻ MBC patient. There was a partial response following this combination with minor adverse events (AEs).

Results

Case presentation

The patient presented here is a 43-year-old Caucasian female diagnosed with MBC (cT2N3M1, stage IV) in January 2018. The PET/CT revealed a 28 mm mass in the left breast as well as FDG uptake in multiple lymph nodes (LN—right supraclavicular and right lower paratracheal, precarinal, and subcarinal) and mediastinal metastasis (proven by biopsy examination—see below). The patient had no history of chronic disease or continuous drug use (only oral contraceptive for 1 year), and no known allergies. She is a light smoker (10 packs/year) but a non-drinker. Although the patient’s cousin was also newly diagnosed with BC, there were no germline BRCA mutations.

The breast Tru-Cut biopsy was ER⁺ (70%), PR⁺ (20%), and HER2⁻ (1+) with a Ki-67 proliferation index of 15%. Although the patient was initially considered T2N3 with suspected mediastinal metastasis, paratracheal plus subcarinal mediastinal LN biopsy (through mediastinoscopy with biopsy) was compatible with BC metastasis, revealing de novo metastatic disease. Accordingly, she received neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of dose-dense doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC—4 cycles, doxorubicin 60 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m² every 2 weeks) followed by weekly paclitaxel (T—12 cycles, 80 mg/m²) from February to July 2018 (Figure 1). Although there was a metabolic and pathologic complete response in August 2018 by PET/CT, breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy) showed a 15 mm mass with histological grade 3 and diffuse Ductal Carcinoma In Stu (DCIS) (no invasive component) in September 2018. Although the patient was offered radiotherapy for the breast and lung after surgery, she refused. The patient was treated with adjuvant tamoxifen (20 mg/day) plus leuprorelin acetate (every 3 months) from September 2018 to January 2021. Due to increased CA 15-3 levels, a PET/CT was requested in January 2021, revealing disease progression in the mediastinal LNs and new bone metastases. She was administered letrozole (2.5 mg/day) plus palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3 weeks on/1 week off—plus leuprorelin acetate and zoledronic acid) from January to November 2021. A partial response was observed in the mediastinal LNs and bone lesions by PET/CT in April 2021 (RECIST v1.1¹²). However, progressive disease was observed in the bone lesions, and three new liver lesions (a 3 cm one in segment 5 plus 1.8 and 1.3 cm lesions) emerged in November 2021, all of which were treated via liver radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Later, the treatment was changed to capecitabine (1250 mg/m² twice daily) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m² on day 1). This regimen was stopped after two cycles due to hand–foot syndrome caused by capecitabine in January 2022, and it was switched to gemcitabine (1200 mg/m² on day 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) plus paclitaxel (75 mg/m² on day 1, January to July 2022, 7 cycles). The PET/CT in March 2022 showed regression in the bone lesions, and the liver foci disappeared (potentially due to the RFA). The patient experienced grade 1 neuropathy, probably caused by paclitaxel. Accordingly, the treatment was changed to single-agent gemcitabine but could not be administered regularly.

Figure 1.

Timeline of disease status and treatment response as well as comparison of the CGP results. (a) A 43-year-old female was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2018. She received multiple lines of chemotherapy or endocrine therapy-containing regimens from 2018 to 2024. Although partial responses had been achieved with some of these treatments, the disease eventually progressed or the treatment was halted due to toxicity issues. From July to August 2023, our team followed a precision oncology approach through CGP and achieved a partial response with an all-oral combination of elacestrant plus alpelisib as well as the ketogenic diet. (b) Comparison of the biomarkers and alterations detected and reported by three different CGP tests. (c) Co-occurrence pattern of ESR1 and PIK3CA alterations in a metastatic breast cancer patient cohort (INSERM, cBioPortal).

The patient was offered a comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) test (OncoDEEP—April 2023, liver Tru-Cut biopsy—ER 10%, PR 60%, and HER2-negative, CGP #1 in Figure 1), which detected ESR1 Y537S, PIK3CA E545K, and CCND1 amplification with a tumor mutational burden (TMB) of 14.95 muts/Mb, microsatellite stable (MSS) and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive status. The test also reported the following immunohistochemistry (IHC) findings: AR 1%, HER2 0%, CD8 10%, and negative PD-L1 status (combined positive score (CPS): 0). The pathology examination confirmed HR-positive, HER2-negative BC with extensive metastasis to the liver. The patient received ET plus alpelisib (300 mg/day, April to May 2023) at an external clinic but experienced hyperglycemia (blood sugar > 300 mg/dL) that led to treatment discontinuation. She was later treated with carboplatin plus paclitaxel for two cycles (May to July 2023).

She was later admitted to our clinic for a second opinion, and we recommended a CGP test to design a patient-tailored treatment plan. We also requested a PET/CT (July 2023) to comprehend the current status of the disease. We first utilized a liquid biopsy to account for tumor heterogeneity of the extensive metastasis (FoundationOne^®Liquid CDx—July 2023, CGP #2 in Figure 1) and observed the following alterations: ESR1 Y537S, PIK3CA E545K, FGFR2-TACC2 rearrangement, MAP3K1 Q1261*, SETD2 S470*, TP53 H193R, and equivocal amplifications of CCND1, MDM2, MYC, EMSY, FGF19, FGF3, and FGF4. The tumor fraction was elevated, the blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was 9 muts/Mb, and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) was not detected. We decided to use elacestrant plus alpelisib considering ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations. While waiting for a response from the off-label drug committee for the combination and access to elacestrant, we initially started with fulvestrant plus alpelisib (150 mg/day), complemented by the ketogenic diet. The patient tolerated the treatment without any blood sugar elevation but experienced grade 1 diarrhea, nausea, and asthenia. AEs were continuously assessed during the study and for 90 days after the last treatment. The AEs were evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0) through weekly biochemical and hematology tests as well as biweekly patient visits. We also offered a Tempus CGP test (August 2023, CGP #3 in Figure 1) due to the presence of an FGFR2 rearrangement at the DNA level, as Tempus could assess the presence of rearrangements/fusions at both DNA and RNA levels. RNA-based analysis is currently considered the gold standard for such alterations. While some alterations were missing in this test using liver biopsy, it reported many of the same alterations: ESR1 Y537S, PIK3CA E545K, MAP3K1 Q1261*, TP53 H193R as well as copy number gains in CCND1, EMSY, FGF3, and FGF4. The tTMB was 4.2 muts/Mb with an MSS and negative PD-L1 status (TPS < 1%, CPS < 1). This test additionally reported overexpression of ERBB3 and PGR, and a HRD score of 26.1%, where the cutoff to define HRD is 21% in BC. The biomarkers and alterations reported by each test are compared in Figure 1(b). The co-occurrence pattern of ESR1 with PIK3CA alterations was shown in an MBC cohort (INSERM, cBioPortal, Figure 1(c)), potentially offering our approach (outlined below) as a promising treatment option for a great number of BC patients. As a note, similar to our case, TMB predicted by different CGP tests and/or tissue versus liquid biopsy could differ dramatically.¹³ Besides, before versus after treatment, TMBs could be highly variable.¹⁴

As our patient received multiple lines of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy including short-term fulvestrant and due to the presence of ESR1 Y537S and PIK3CA E545K mutations, we recommended and switched to elacestrant (345 mg/day) plus alpelisib (100 mg/day, increased to 150 mg/day with a ketogenic diet) combination. Since our patient had previously experienced hyperglycemia with full-dose alpelisib (which is consistent with our own clinical experience), we started with a lower dose to avoid treatment discontinuation. The treatment was well tolerated with grade 1 asthenia, highlighting that alpelisib retreatment after hyperglycemia could be managed by dose reduction and ketogenic diet (increasing tolerability and efficacy). Furthermore, we have followed this approach in combination with ET and achieved remarkable responses in other A/MBC patients. The PET/CT (October 2023 vs July 2023) revealed a partial response in the metastatic lesions and improved clinical status (Figure 2(a) vs (c) and (b) vs (d)). Unfortunately, performance status deterioration and disease progression (time-to-progression: ~5.5 months) by ultrasonography were reported at the external clinic in January 2024. We added lenvatinib to the treatment to target FGF/R alterations but the patient succumbed to death after 3 months (April 2024). The cause of death was neither tumor progression as there was a stable disease response, nor any drug-related AEs. It was reported to be pneumonitis caused by an infection (pneumonia).

Figure 2.

A partial response was observed in the metastatic lesions upon the elacestrant plus alpelisib combination. (a) July 2023 pet shows lesions in the liver parenchyma at the level of segments 5 and 6 with prominent FDG uptake, consistent with metastasis (arrows—see (a) vs (c)). (b) July 2023 PET shows lesions in the liver parenchyma in segments 8 and 4 with prominent FDG uptake, consistent with metastasis (arrows—see (b) vs (d)). (c) Three months later, a significant decrease in the FDG uptake of the lesions was observed, and only peripheral mild FDG uptake was present (arrows). (d) PET examination performed 3 months later shows only peripheral mild FDG uptake (arrows).

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for both treatment and publication of her anonymized data in this scientific publication. We also submitted an off-label drug use application to the Ministry of Health and received approval.

Methods

CGP tests

The first CGP test (OncoDEEP) was carried out using a liver biopsy collected on April 5, 2023. Tumor percentage was 70%. This test analyzes both DNA (638 genes) and RNA (22 genes) as well as genomic biomarkers (MSI, TMB, HRD) plus TERT promoter status. Additional tests, such as PD-L1 IHC and MGMT methylation status, could be requested. The second test (FoundationOne Liquid CDx) was performed using liquid biopsy blood collected on July 10, 2023. This test provides alteration data for over 300 genes and bTMB, MSI-H, and tumor fraction values. The tumor fraction was 69% (elevated), implying that all types of alterations including copy number variants (CNVs) could be reliably detected. The third and final test (Tempus) was done using a liver biopsy collected on August 5, 2023. The tumor percentage was 80% post microdissection. Tempus xT test using solid tumor plus a normal control is a 648-gene panel that reports clinically relevant alterations, immunotherapy biomarkers such as TMB and MSI, HLA genotyping, as well as potential germline findings. With the add-ons, Tempus could provide PD-L1 IHC, HRD, and RNA-seq for structural variants and transcriptomic analysis (present in our case).

The reporting of this study conforms to the CARE guidelines.¹⁵

Discussion

BC, as the most diagnosed cancer, is a global health problem with a 5-year survival rate of less than 30% in distant metastatic cases.¹⁶ The first-line treatment in the HR⁺/HER2⁻ MBC without visceral metastasis and germline BRCA1/2 mutation is ET (a nonsteroidal AI or fulvestrant) plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor.^3,4 However, de novo or especially acquired resistance to hormone therapy is observed in many patients, rendering current approaches ineffective. Some resistance mechanisms include acquisition of ESR1 mutations, loss of ER and high cyclin E1 expression, dysregulation in ER co-regulatory proteins, amplifications in MYC and FGFR1 as well as TP53 mutations.^17–20

ESR1 mutations are frequently detected in metastatic tumors as compared to the primary tumors.²¹ Analysis through liquid biopsy tools (ctDNA + circulating tumor cells (CTCs) revealed the relationship of different mutations with organ tropism and reported that ESR1 mutations were the only significant parameter associated with liver metastasis. Consistently, all CGP tests from liver biopsies or liquid biopsies in our case detected an ESR1 mutation.²² Many of the ESR1 mutations are activating and can drive ligand-independent ER activity but may differentially affect the pathway activity or the response to endocrine therapies (Y537S vs D538G, E380Q, S463P).²³ For example, 537 mutations were usually accompanied by single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in the estrogen receptor (ER) and RAF pathways, CNVs in the MYC pathway and bone metastases, while ESR1 538 with SNVs in the cell cycle pathway and liver metastases.²⁴ They are mostly found after AI treatment (or AI plus CDK4/6i) and are associated with worse patient outcomes.^9,25 Unlike AIs, some clinical studies showed that fulvestrant-based treatment could be efficacious in the ESR1-mutant patients similar to the ESR1 wild-type (WT) patients.⁷ However, ESR1 Y537S mutation was found to be statistically enriched in the posttreatment (fulvestrant plus palbociclib) samples through the genomic landscape and clonal evolution analysis in the PALOMA-3 trial.²⁶ Similarly, patients harboring baseline Y537S mutation had a shorter progression-free survival (PFS—1.8 vs 3.5 months) than those WT for this residue following fulvestrant treatment (cohort A) in the plasmaMATCH phase II trial.²⁷ One strategy to overcome the resistance could be chemotherapy and fulvestrant combination; however, a study demonstrated that the combination was synergistic in the Y537S-mutant models but dependent on p53 activity.²⁸ Considering the previous failures with multiple lines of chemotherapy and the patient’s TP53 mutation, this approach was not prioritized in our case. Moreover, PIK3CA mutations or activation have been previously associated with resistance to chemotherapy in many cancer types.^29–31 As the next generation of anti-estrogen therapies active against ESR1 mutations has been developed, they could form the backbone for the treatment of endocrine-refractory patients. Following the phase III EMERALD trial, elacestrant has received regulatory approval as monotherapy for postmenopausal women or adult men with ER⁺/HER2⁻, ESR1-mutated A/MBC with disease progression following at least one line of ET.³² The duration of prior ET + CDK4/6i in metastatic setting was associated with elacestrant efficacy (⩾12 vs ⩾6 months).³³ Patients with ESR1- and PIK3CA E542X/E545X-mutated tumors and ET + CDK4/6i ⩾12 months had PFS of 5.5 versus 1.9 months (HR: 0.80) with elacestrant and the SOC, respectively. Those with concurrent ESR1 and TP53 mutations (8.61 vs 1.87 months), or ESR1 mutations with liver and/or lung metastases (7.26 vs 1.87 months) exhibited remarkably longer PFS upon elacestrant versus placebo.³³ There are also ELAINE 2 phase II trial³⁴ (with abemaciclib) and a case report (monotherapy)³⁵ showing the clinical efficacy of lasofoxifene (LAS), a nonsteroidal selective ER modulator, in a similar group of patients after disease progression on prior therapies. Lastly, early results from a randomized phase II trial (SERENA-2) demonstrated improved and promising clinical outcomes with a next-generation oral SERD, camizestrant versus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced ER⁺/HER2⁻ BC with disease recurrence or progression after ⩽1 ET and a baseline ESR1 mutation, including Y537S.^36,37 Since our patient did not obtain clinical benefit from the ET-containing regimens and potential resistance to fulvestrant through Y537S mutation, we switched to elacestrant to enhance therapeutic efficacy.

PIK3CA is the most commonly mutated gene in TCGA PanCancer Atlas³⁸ and METABRIC BC cohorts.³⁹ A meta-analysis in advanced HR⁺, HER2⁻ BC patients not receiving PI3K-targeted drugs revealed that PIK3CA mutation was a negative prognostic factor for both progression-free and overall survival.⁴⁰ For example, PFS was shorter in patients with concomitant ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations compared to all ESR1-mutated patients (5.45 vs 8.61 months) although elacestrant still led to significantly higher PFS compared to placebo (5.45 vs 1.94 months).^33,41 While ESR1- and PIK3CA E542X/E545X-mutated tumors and ET + CDK4/6i ⩾12 months exhibited PFS of 5.5 versus 1.9 months with elacestrant versus the SOC, it was 4.6 versus 3.3 months for ESR1- and PIK3CA H1047X-mutated patients. In line, LAS plus abemaciclib yielded a 73% CBR and 12.9 months PFS in the ESR1-mutant patients, whereas they were 63% and 7.8 months in the ESR1 and PIK3CA co-mutant patients.⁴² Just five hotspot mutations cover approximately 75% of all PIK3CA mutations in BC, where E545K accounts for more than 15%.⁴³ PIK3CA variant classes show differential patterns of associations in terms of concomitant mutations, pathway activity, or clinical phenotype.²⁴ For example, 545 mutations were associated with the SNVs in the P53 pathway while 542 mutations were correlated with the SNVs in receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/RAS and CNVs in the PI3K pathway. Furthermore, PIK3CA mutations were linked to lung tropism in MBC while TP53 alterations were associated with LN localization.²² These alterations could be currently targeted by alpelisib, capivasertib, or mTOR inhibitor, everolimus.^44,45 While alpelisib with fulvestrant is indicated for postmenopausal women and men with HR⁺/HER2⁻, PIK3CA-mutated, A/MBC as following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen, the everolimus with exemestane is for patients with metastatic HR-positive BC who progressed on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy.⁴⁶ Prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors did not lead to differential survival outcomes with this combination. More recently, pan-AKT inhibitor capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved in HR⁺/HER2⁻ locally A/MBC harboring one or more AKT1, PIK3CA, or PTEN alterations following the positive results from the phase III CAPItello-291 trial.⁴⁵ However, the currently available data regarding the tolerability and efficacy of elacestrant with these agents are limited even though there are ongoing early-phase clinical trials (NCT05563220 and NCT05386108, n = 3 for elacestrant 300 mg/day plus alpelisib 250 mg/day) evaluating the combinations of elacestrant with alpelisib, capivasertib, everolimus, or CDK4/6 inhibitors.⁴⁷ One study reported that elacestrant plus alpelisib was tolerable and could impair tumor growth in letrozole and letrozole plus palbociclib-pretreated PIK3CA-mutant (ESR1 WT) patient derived xenograft (PDX) model.⁴⁸ Here our precision oncology center, for the first time, showed that elacestrant and alpelisib at doses selected through molecular tumor board discussions were well tolerated with minor toxicities such as grade 1 asthenia. In our clinical experience, alpelisib at 150 mg/day is clinically active and more tolerable than the regular dose in combination with ET in BC patients. The ketogenic diet was reported to potentially improve the tolerability and efficacy of PI3K inhibitors. Similarly, prophylactic metformin could diminish the incidence and severity of hyperglycemia.⁴⁹ Overall, we achieved a partial response in the liver and bone metastatic lesions upon combinatorial treatment (Figure 2).

Gene fusions are strong oncogenic drivers that can drive tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and therapeutic failure. However, FGFR2-TACC2 rearrangement reported in the FoundationOne Liquid CDx was later predicted to be “not in-frame” upon additional information request from the test provider. It was a result of chromosome 10 duplication fragment with breakpoints at chr10:123241583 and chr10:123788371 (5′-FGFR2 (x1-17)-3′:3′-TACC2 (x2-1)-5′). Consistently, the Tempus test from the liver biopsy did not report any FGFR2-TACC2 rearrangement although the alteration was detected at the DNA level, it was absent at the RNA level. Besides, out-of-frame fusions are often assumed to be inactivating mutations and labeled as passenger mutations.^50–52 Considering that the RNA-based approach is the gold standard for the detection of structural variants, we initially did not include any FGFR inhibitor in the combination therapy. Similarly, the specimen harbors CCND1 and FGF amplifications (albeit equivocal in the F1 Liquid CDx) that can undermine therapeutic benefit. Pan-FGFR inhibitors such as pemigatinib have limited activity against these amplifications.⁵³ Multikinase FGFR inhibitors, unlike specific FGFR inhibitors, have also activity against other RTKs, such as VEGFR, which could be upregulated due to the presence of the TP53 mutation.^54,55 For example, lenvatinib in combination with palbociclib was highly active (50% PR) in the FGF/FGFR and accompanying alterations.⁵⁶ Therefore, these alterations should be monitored carefully during treatment.

Our study shows the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the all-oral elacestrant plus alpelisib combination for the first time but it has some shortcomings. Although our patient was heavily pretreated (and prior ET + CDK4/6i ~10 months), the elacestrant plus alpelisib combination yielded a short time to progression (TTP) of approximately 5.5 months, which is quite similar to PFS in patients with ESR1- and PIK3CA E542X/E545X-mutated tumors (prior ET + CDK4/6i ⩾12 months) with elacestrant monotherapy. Furthermore, the potential effect of alterations other than ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53 toward elacestrant efficacy was not reported in the subgroup analysis in the EMERALD trial. Therefore, we cannot clearly pinpoint potential mechanisms of adaptive and/or acquired resistance to elacestrant ± alpelisib. Finally, a single case would preclude making generalized assumptions about the clinical activity of the combination in ESR1/PIK3CA co-mutated patients.

Conclusion

Overall, HR⁺/HER2⁻ MBC is a challenging clinical entity to treat, especially after the failure of the SOC and in heavily pretreated patients. Fortunately, we demonstrated for the first time that an all-oral combination of elacestrant plus alpelisib with dose modifications and a ketogenic diet was feasible and clinically active in an ESR1 and PIK3CA co-mutated patient. Accordingly, utilizing up-to-date therapeutic agents and reactive decision-making during personalized cancer treatment may be a promising approach. It is also important to note that we should strive to make precision oncology the SOC, not the currently organ-based therapeutic approach. The timely evaluation and approval of such off-label drug combinations by health authorities could speed up the paradigm shift toward precision oncology.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

No further contributions to the research, writing, or preparation of this manuscript were provided outside of the listed authors.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Ünal Metin Tokat

Şevval Nur Bilgiç

Esranur Aydın

Eylül Özgü

Mutlu Demiray

References

Siegel

Miller

Wagle

, et al. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023; 73: 17–48.

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209–249.

Al Sukhun

Temin

Barrios

, et al. Systemic treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer: ASCO resource-stratified guideline. JCO Glob Oncol 2024; 10: e2300285.

D’Amico

Cristofanilli

. Standard of care in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: can we improve the current regimens or develop better selection tools? JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18: 331–334.

Chan

Toh

, et al. Emerging systemic therapy options beyond CDK4/6 inhibitors for hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023; 9: 74.

Mittal

Molto Valiente

Tamimi

, et al. Filling the gap after CDK4/6 inhibitors: novel endocrine and biologic treatment options for metastatic hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15: 2015.

Turner

Swift

Kilburn

, 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: 5172–5177.

Brett

Spring

Bardia

, et al. ESR1 mutation as an emerging clinical biomarker in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2021; 23: 85.

Chaudhary

Chibly

Collier

, et al. CDK4/6i-treated HR⁺/HER2⁻ breast cancer tumors show higher ESR1 mutation prevalence and more altered genomic landscape. NPJ Breast Cancer 2024; 10: 15.

10.

Zundelevich

Dadiani

Kahana-Edwin

, et al. ESR1 mutations are frequent in newly diagnosed metastatic and loco-regional recurrence of endocrine-treated breast cancer and carry worse prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 2020; 22: 16.

11.

Rugo

O’Shaughnessy

Cortes

, et al. Elacestrant in various combinations in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor-positive (ER⁺), HER2-negative (HER2⁻) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (adv/mBC): preliminary data from ELEVATE, a phase 1b/2, open-label, umbrella study. Ann Oncol 2024; 35(2): S372–S373.

12.

Eisenhauer

Therasse

Bogaerts

, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228–247.

13.

Sturgill

Misch

Jones

, et al. Discordance in tumor mutation burden from blood and tissue affects association with response to immune checkpoint inhibition in real-world settings. Oncologist 2022; 27: 175–182.

14.

Huang

, et al. Pan-cancer analysis of heterogeneity of tumor mutational burden and genomic mutation under treatment pressure. ESMO Open 2024; 9: 103494.

15.

Gagnier

Kienle

Altman

, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Glob Adv Health Med 2013; 2: 38–43.

16.

Yang

Hewitt

. Locoregional tumor burden and risk of mortality in metastatic breast cancer. NPJ Precis Oncol 2022; 6: 22.

17.

McAndrew

Finn

. Clinical review on the management of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18: 319–327.

18.

Belachew

Sewasew

. Molecular mechanisms of endocrine resistance in estrogen-positive breast cancer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021; 12: 599586.

19.

O’Leary

Cutts

Huang

, et al. Circulating tumor DNA markers for early progression on fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in ER⁺ advanced breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 309–317.

20.

Turner

Liu

Zhu

, et al. Cyclin E1 expression and palbociclib efficacy in previously treated hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 1169–1178.

21.

Herzog

Fuqua

SAW

. ESR1 mutations and therapeutic resistance in metastatic breast cancer: progress and remaining challenges. Br J Cancer 2022; 126: 174–186.

22.

Gerratana

Davis

Polano

, et al. Understanding the organ tropism of metastatic breast cancer through the combination of liquid biopsy tools. Eur J Cancer 2021; 143: 147–157.

23.

Toy

Weir

Razavi

, et al. Activating ESR1 mutations differentially affect the efficacy of ER antagonists. Cancer Discov 2017; 7: 277–287.

24.

Gerratana

Davis

Velimirovic

, et al. Interplay between ESR1/PIK3CA codon variants, oncogenic pathway alterations and clinical phenotype in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): comprehensive circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis. Breast Cancer Res 2023; 25: 112.

25.

Chandarlapaty

Chen

, 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.

26.

O’Leary

Cutts

Liu

, et al. The genetic landscape and clonal evolution of breast cancer resistance to palbociclib plus fulvestrant in the PALOMA-3 trial. Cancer Discov 2018; 8: 1390–1403.

27.

Kingston

Pearson

Herrera-Abreu

, et al. ESR1 F404 mutations and acquired resistance to fulvestrant in the plasmaMATCH study. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 1009–1009.

28.

Hermida-Prado

Guarducci

, et al. Combination of fulvestrant and chemotherapy in ESR1 Y537S mutant breast cancer cells and potential synergy mechanism related to p53 wildtype. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 1065.

29.

Dong

Shan

Han

, et al. Baseline mutations and up-regulation of PI3K-AKT pathway serve as potential indicators of lack of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II/III breast cancer. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 784985.

30.

Pergialiotis

Nikolaou

Haidopoulos

, et al. PIK3CA mutations and their impact on survival outcomes of patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review. Acta Cytol 2020; 64: 547–555.

31.

Wang

Shi

Zhou

, et al. PIK3CA mutations confer resistance to first-line chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. Cell Death Dis 2018; 9: 739.

32.

Bidard

Kaklamani

Neven

, 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: 3246–3256.

33.

Bardia

Cortes

Bidard

, et al. Elacestrant in ER⁺, HER2⁼ MBC 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(19): 4299–4309.

34.

Damodaran

O’Sullivan

Elkhanany

, et al. Open-label, phase II, multicenter study of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating women with metastatic ER⁺/HER2⁻ breast cancer and an ESR1 mutation after disease progression on prior therapies: ELAINE 2. Ann Oncol 2023; 34: 1131–1140.

35.

Gal-Yam

Levanon

. Lasofoxifene monotherapy induces durable complete remission in a patient with estrogen receptor-positive, metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. JCO Precis Oncol 2023; 7: e2300097.

36.

Wong

NZH

Yap

DWT

Ong

RJM

, et al. Efficacy of oral SERDs in the treatment of ER⁺, HER2—metastatic breast cancer, a stratified analysis of the ESR1 wild type and mutant subgroups. Ann Oncol 2023; S0923-7534(23)04328-4.

37.

Oliveira

Pominchuk

Hamilton

, et al. Clinical activity of camizestrant, a next-generation SERD, versus fulvestrant in patients with a detectable ESR1 mutation: exploratory analysis of the SERENA-2 phase 2 trial. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41: 1066.

38.

Berger

Korkut

Kanchi

, et al. A comprehensive pan-cancer molecular study of gynecologic and breast cancers. Cancer Cell 2018; 33: 690.e9–705.e9.

39.

Pereira

Chin

Rueda

, et al. The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refines their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 11479.

40.

Fillbrunn

Signorovitch

Andre

, 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.

41.

Bardia

O’Shaughnessy

Bidard

, et al. Abstract PS17-02: elacestrant vs standard-of-care in ER⁺/HER2⁻ advanced or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with ESR1 mutation: key biomarkers and clinical subgroup analyses from the phase 3 EMERALD trial. Cancer Res 2024; 84(Suppl. 9): PS17-02.

42.

Damodaran

Cristofanilli

Goetz

, et al. Abstract PO2-14-09: baseline genomic alterations and the activity of lasofoxifene (LAS) plus abemaciclib (Abema) in patients with ER⁺/HER2⁻ metastatic breast cancer (mBC): the ELAINE 2 study. Cancer Res 2024; 84: PO2-14-09.

43.

Martinez-Saez

Chic

Pascual

, et al. Frequency and spectrum of PIK3CA somatic mutations in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2020; 22: 45.

44.

Vernieri

Corti

Nichetti

, et al. Everolimus versus alpelisib in advanced hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer: targeting different nodes of the PI3K/AKT/mTORC1 pathway with different clinical implications. Breast Cancer Res 2020; 22: 33.

45.

Turner

Oliveira

Howell

, et al. Capivasertib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2023; 388: 2058–2070.

46.

Baselga

Campone

Piccart

, et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 520–529.

47.

Varella

Cristofanilli

. Evaluating elacestrant in the management of ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: evidence to date. Onco Targets Ther 2023; 16: 189–196.

48.

Patel

Tao

Lee

, et al. Elacestrant (RAD1901) exhibits anti-tumor activity in multiple ER⁺ breast cancer models resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors. Breast Cancer Res 2019; 21: 146.

49.

Llombart-Cussac

Pérez-Garcia

Borrego

, 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.

50.

Howarth

Mirza

Cooke

, et al. NRG1 fusions in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2021; 23: 3.

51.

Liu

Tokheim

Lee

, et al. Genetic fusions favor tumorigenesis through degron loss in oncogenes. Nat Commun 2021; 12: 6704.

52.

Koh

Chang

, et al. Unearthing novel fusions as therapeutic targets in solid tumors using targeted RNA sequencing. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 892918.

53.

Subbiah

Iannotti

Gutierrez

, et al. FIGHT-101, a first-in-human study of potent and selective FGFR 1–3 inhibitor pemigatinib in pan-cancer patients with FGF/FGFR alterations and advanced malignancies. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: 522–533.

54.

Wheler

Janku

Naing

, et al. TP53 alterations correlate with response to VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors: implications for targeted therapeutics. Mol Cancer Ther 2016; 15: 2475–2485.

55.

Boichard

Kurzrock

. Mutated TP53 is a marker of increased VEGF expression: analysis of 7,525 pan-cancer tissues. Cancer Biol Ther 2020; 21: 95–100.

56.

Uehara

Ikeda

Kim

, et al. Targeting the FGF/FGFR axis and its co-alteration allies. ESMO Open 2022; 7: 100647.