Cancers with estrogen receptor (ER) expression of 50% or less, while technically HR+, often behave biologically like basal or triple-negative tumors. These cancers are not primarily endocrine-driven and show a significant benefit from the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors, challenging traditional subtype classifications.
The modest benefit of PARP inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer, compared to ovarian cancer, is likely due to resistance induced by prior exposure to DNA-damaging agents like anthracyclines. This explains the clinical rationale for moving PARP inhibitors to earlier treatment settings, such as neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, before resistance develops.
In a subset analysis of the high-risk MONARCH-E trial, an inferred Oncotype score did not identify which patients benefited from the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib. This indicates that while such scores assess prognostic risk and guide chemotherapy decisions, they are not predictive biomarkers for selecting patients for this targeted therapy.
Giving adjuvant olaparib to BRCA-mutated patients who have already achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) from neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is discouraged. Their prognosis is already excellent, so adding a PARP inhibitor offers little potential benefit while exposing them to unnecessary risks of toxicity, such as MDS/AML.
Data from the MONARCH-E and NATALY trials show that the benefit of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors like abemaciclib and ribociclib persists and even increases after patients complete their 2-3 year treatment course. This sustained "carryover effect" suggests a lasting impact on disease biology rather than just temporary suppression.
For high-risk, HR+ patients with germline BRCA mutations, data suggest they derive less benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitors. A practical approach is to give one year of the PARP inhibitor olaparib first, followed by a CDK4/6 inhibitor, capitalizing on the delayed initiation allowance in major trials.