» Articles » PMID: 40075731

Efficiency of Fulvestrant Monotherapy After CDK4/6 Inhibitor Exposure: Is This a Viable Choice?

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2025 Mar 13
PMID 40075731
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Guidelines for the first-line treatment of Hormone Receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or recurrent breast cancer have shifted to combination therapies of a CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy. However, determining an optimal subsequent therapy following CDK4/6 inhibitor progression remains challenging, especially for tumors lacking actionable mutations. Real-world data suggest that fulvestrant monotherapy is frequently selected in this post-CDK4/6 inhibitor setting. This review examines its therapeutic potential in this evolving landscape. A systematic literature search using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov identified 153 clinical trials published between 2017 and November 2024, from which ten studies met our strict inclusion criteria, focusing solely on fulvestrant monotherapy. These trials encompassed 1038 patients who had prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors. The selected studies were categorized into three groups: monotherapy trials (EMERALD, SERENA-2, AMEERA-3, and ELAINE-1), combination therapy trials (CAPItello-291 and VERONICA), and CDK4/6 inhibitor rechallenge trials (post-MONARCH, PACE, PALMIRA, and MAINTAIN). The median progression-free survival for fulvestrant monotherapy was 3.18 months (range 1.9-5.3 months). Factors affecting the efficacy of fulvestrant monotherapy in second-line therapy include prior treatments, treatment duration, and genetic mutations. Given that the efficacy of fulvestrant was short-lived in the second or subsequent lines, participating in clinical trials is a vital option until a novel alternative treatment choice becomes available.

References
1.
Treilleux I, Arnedos M, Cropet C, Wang Q, Ferrero J, Abadie-Lacourtoisie S . Translational studies within the TAMRAD randomized GINECO trial: evidence for mTORC1 activation marker as a predictive factor for everolimus efficacy in advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2014; 26(1):120-125. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu497. View

2.
Mayer E, Ren Y, Wagle N, Mahtani R, Ma C, DeMichele A . 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.... J Clin Oncol. 2024; 42(17):2050-2060. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.01940. View

3.
Goetz M, Bagegni N, Batist G, Brufsky A, Cristofanilli M, Damodaran S . Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial. Ann Oncol. 2023; 34(12):1141-1151. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.09.3104. View

4.
Martin J, Handorf E, Montero A, Goldstein L . Systemic Therapies Following Progression on First-line CDK4/6-inhibitor Treatment: Analysis of Real-world Data. Oncologist. 2022; 27(6):441-446. PMC: 9177121. DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac075. View

5.
Kornblum N, Zhao F, Manola J, Klein P, Ramaswamy B, Brufsky A . Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: Results.... J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36(16):1556-1563. PMC: 7186582. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.9331. View