ReviewBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2026
New perspectives on endocrine therapy suitability for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in clinical practice.
Review in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clarification of oestrogen receptor thresholds and Allred scoring.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) is a heterogeneous and dynamic disease. Endocrine therapy (ET) + cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors remain the standard-of-care first-line therapy for ABC. However, the treatment landscape is rapidly evolving as our understanding of the complex biology underlying this common subtype advances. Predicting how a patient's cancer might respond to ET across lines of therapy and understanding optimal sequencing in clinical practice are key unmet needs. A range of established and emerging clinical characteristics and biomarkers, including endocrine receptor expression, presence of specific mutations (e.g., ESR1, PIK3CA), and visceral disease, are currently used to guide treatment decisions. However, international guidelines have variable definitions of ET resistance and sensitivity, making delivery of individualized care in clinical practice challenging. Considering this unmet need and leveraging the existing evidence for both prognostic and predictive markers of therapeutic response, we propose that idea of ET suitability be used as a complement to ET resistance and sensitivity. We consider ET suitability to be the clinical assessment of whether a patient could benefit from ET, where benefit is defined not solely by tumor response but by a clinically relevant constellation of characteristics and markers possibly predicting the durability of disease response and symptom control. Several unresolved questions remain regarding issues such as disease heterogeneity, optimal treatment sequencing, and biomarker precision, but further work and ongoing studies will help to support the evolution of guidelines and provide clarity around the effective application of this quickly developing field to daily clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.