Primary Endocrine Therapy vs Upfront Surgery for Older Women With Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer
6 affiliations
- 1Women’s Cancer Research Center, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- 2Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 3Department of Statistics, School of Public Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
- 4Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- 5Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- 6Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Abstract
Importance: As the population of older women with breast cancer grows, an increasing number are considered for primary endocrine therapy (pET), yet clinicians lack a framework for identifying which patients are appropriate candidates, resulting in reliance on chronologic age and life expectancy rather than tumor biology.
Objective: To evaluate survival and variables associated with response duration for patients treated with pET.
Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through March 26, 2026.
Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCT (observational) cohorts comparing pET with surgery in operable, nonmetastatic, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer.
Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Hazard ratios (HRs) not directly reported were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Randomized clinical trial–derived HRs for overall survival (OS) and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) were pooled using a random-effects model, given anticipated heterogeneity across trials spanning 5 decades and differing tumor biology criteria. Observational cohorts were analyzed descriptively, not pooled for comparative survival, given susceptibility to confounding by indication.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were OS and BCSS (RCTs) assessed using meta-analysis. Time to progression, salvage intervention rates, and variables associated with progression and mortality (observational cohorts) were assessed using descriptive analyses.
Results: Twenty-nine studies (6 RCTs and 23 observational cohorts; 22 821 patients; overall median [IQR] age, 83.1 [77.0-85.0] years) met the inclusion criteria. Patients from RCTs were generally younger (median [IQR] age, 77.0 [75.8-78.0] years) than those from the observational studies (median [IQR] age, 84.0 [81.5-86.0] years). Treatment with pET was not associated with a statistically significant OS difference vs surgery (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98-1.33), though the point estimate favored surgery. Median time to progression ranged from 19.7 months (range, 13.5-26.0 months) in tumor biology–unselected, tamoxifen-era cohorts to more than 50 months in ER-selected and aromatase inhibitor–treated cohorts. Tumor biology was consistently associated with progression risk.
Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 22 000 patients with ER-positive breast cancer found no statistically significant survival difference between pET and upfront surgery. Durable disease control under pET seemed to be concentrated in patients with favorable biology. These findings support a framework incorporating tumor biology and frailty, rather than age alone, to identify candidates for pET.
Related
- Endocrine therapy adherence and 10-year cardiometabolic risk in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer
- Estradiol Modulates Cytotoxic Responses to Topoisomerase II Targeting Agents in Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer Cells
- Updated results of the POSITIVE (Pregnancy Outcome and Safety of Interrupting Therapy for Women with Endocrine Responsive Breast Cancer) trial
- A surprising complete radiographic response to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in an HR-positive, HER2-low lung, pleural, and lymph node metastatic breast cancer patient: a case report.
- Patterns of central nervous system and leptomeningeal involvement in advanced breast cancer with invasive lobular histology: a large multicenter study with a focus on estrogen receptor-positive/HER2-negative disease
BibTeX
@article{carleton2026primary,
title = {{Primary Endocrine Therapy vs Upfront Surgery for Older Women With Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer}},
author = {Neil Carleton and Jian Zou and Yangyang Mu and Steffi Oesterreich and Shannon Puhalla and Julia Foldi and George Tseng and Adrian V. Lee and Priscilla F. McAuliffe},
journal = {JAMA Network Open},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.43218},
url = {https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2856323},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Primary Endocrine Therapy vs Upfront Surgery for Older Women With Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer
AU - Neil Carleton
AU - Jian Zou
AU - Yangyang Mu
AU - Steffi Oesterreich
AU - Shannon Puhalla
AU - Julia Foldi
AU - George Tseng
AU - Adrian V. Lee
AU - Priscilla F. McAuliffe
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/06
JO - JAMA Network Open
DO - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.43218
UR - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2856323
AB - Importance: As the population of older women with breast cancer grows, an increasing number are considered for primary endocrine therapy (pET), yet clinicians lack a framework for identifying which patients are appropriate candidates, resulting in reliance on chronologic age and life expectancy rather than tumor biology. Objective: To evaluate survival and variables associated with response duration for patients treated with pET. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through March 26, 2026. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCT (observational) cohorts comparing pET with surgery in operable, nonmetastatic, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Hazard ratios (HRs) not directly reported were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Randomized clinical trial–derived HRs for overall survival (OS) and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) were pooled using a random-effects model, given anticipated heterogeneity across trials spanning 5 decades and differing tumor biology criteria. Observational cohorts were analyzed descriptively, not pooled for comparative survival, given susceptibility to confounding by indication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were OS and BCSS (RCTs) assessed using meta-analysis. Time to progression, salvage intervention rates, and variables associated with progression and mortality (observational cohorts) were assessed using descriptive analyses. Results: Twenty-nine studies (6 RCTs and 23 observational cohorts; 22 821 patients; overall median [IQR] age, 83.1 [77.0-85.0] years) met the inclusion criteria. Patients from RCTs were generally younger (median [IQR] age, 77.0 [75.8-78.0] years) than those from the observational studies (median [IQR] age, 84.0 [81.5-86.0] years). Treatment with pET was not associated with a statistically significant OS difference vs surgery (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98-1.33), though the point estimate favored surgery. Median time to progression ranged from 19.7 months (range, 13.5-26.0 months) in tumor biology–unselected, tamoxifen-era cohorts to more than 50 months in ER-selected and aromatase inhibitor–treated cohorts. Tumor biology was consistently associated with progression risk. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 22 000 patients with ER-positive breast cancer found no statistically significant survival difference between pET and upfront surgery. Durable disease control under pET seemed to be concentrated in patients with favorable biology. These findings support a framework incorporating tumor biology and frailty, rather than age alone, to identify candidates for pET.
SN - 2574-3805
ER -