Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369610›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2025

ESR1 testing on FFPE samples from metastatic lesions in HR + /HER2- breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

Konstantinos Venetis, Giulia Cursano, Roberta Scafetta, Pier Paolo Maria Berton Giachetti, Alberto Concardi, Elisa De Camilli, Marianna D'Ercole, Eltjona Mane, Chiara Frascarelli, Antonio Marra and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Liquid biopsy in solid tumours: expert opinion paper of the European society of pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Konstantinos Venetis *Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia Cursano *Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Roberta ScafettaMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Pier Paolo Maria Berton GiachettiDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Alberto ConcardiDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Elisa De CamilliDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Marianna D'ErcoleDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Eltjona ManeDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Chiara FrascarelliDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Antonio MarraDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Sara GandiniDepartment of Experimental Oncology, IEO, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Francesco PepeDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Simone ScagnoliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Science, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Silvia Maria RossiOperative Research Unit of Anatomical Pathology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Raffaella TroianoMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Elena SpezialeMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Carmine De AngelisDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giancarlo TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe PerroneOperative Research Unit of Anatomical Pathology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Andrea BotticelliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Science, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe VialeDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe CuriglianoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Elena Guerini RoccoDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. elena.guerinirocco@ieo.it.
Carmen Criscitiello *Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Nicola Fusco *Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutations in ESR1 play a critical role in resistance to endocrine therapy (ET) in hormone receptor-positive (HR +)/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Testing for ESR1 mutations is essential for guiding treatment with novel oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) like elacestrant or camizestrant. While most studies have utilized liquid biopsy (LB) for mutation detection, the role of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue biopsy in this context remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed a cohort of HR + /HER2- MBC patients who experienced resistance to ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on FFPE biopsy samples obtained from metastatic sites at the time of disease progression. ESR1 mutations were detected in 24 out of 38 patients (63.2%), with p.D538G identified in 10 patients (45.5%) and p.Y537S in 6 patients (27.2%) as the most frequent alterations. One patient exhibited dual ESR1 mutations, and a recurrent ESR1-CCDC170 gene fusion was identified, underscoring the diversity and potential interplay of genetic alterations driving resistance in HR + /HER2- MBC. Notably, lung metastases were significantly more common in ESR1 mutant cases (8/24, 33.3%) compared to wild-type cases (1/14, 7.1%), while liver metastases showed no difference between mutant (12/24, 50.0%) and wild-type groups (7/14, 50.0%). Co-mutations in actionable pathways, particularly PIK3CA, were observed in n = 10 ESR1 mutant tumors (41.6%), highlighting their contribution to resistance mechanisms and posing significant challenges for treatment selection, as these alterations may necessitate combination therapies to effectively target multiple resistance pathways. This study presents new insights into the prevalence and clinical significance of ESR1 mutations in HR + /HER2- MBC, highlighting the potential utility of FFPE biopsy samples as a viable alternative or complementary approach to LB for mutation detection, particularly in resource-limited settings where access to ctDNA analysis may be constrained.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEstrogen Receptor alphaAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorCyclin-Dependent Kinase 4Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6Disease ProgressionDrug Resistance, NeoplasmErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasm MetastasisBiomarkers, TumorCDK4 protein, humanCDK6 protein, humanCyclin-Dependent Kinase 4Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6ERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesESR1 protein, humanEstrogen Receptor alphaProtein Kinase InhibitorsReceptors, ProgesteroneCDK4/6 inhibitorsctDNAEndocrine therapy resistanceESR1 mutationsFFPE tissue biopsyMetastatic breast cancer (MBC)SERDs

Identifiers

PMID40369610
PMCPMC12079830

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.