Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Breast Care · October 19, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background: Elacestrant is an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) approved for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) following progression on endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors. While randomized trial data from the EMERALD study demonstrated its clinical benefit, real-world evidence remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC treated with elacestrant at two large cancer centers in Vienna, Austria. Clinical outcomes and safety were evaluated in routine clinical practice by experienced oncologists. Results: Elacestrant demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy in a heavily pretreated patient population of 30 patients with estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations. Median age was 65 years and the cohort was predominantly postmenopausal (86.7%). Before initiation of elacestrant, patients had received a median of two lines of endocrine therapy and one line of chemotherapy. Co-mutations of ESR1/PIK3CA were present in 33.3% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.96 – 4.24) and median overall survival (OS) was 20.2 months (95% CI 5.04 – 35.36). Adverse events of any grade were found in 46.7% of patients. Within our cohort, a low rate of dose reductions (3.3%) was found. Subsequent therapies after elacestrant mainly consisted of antibody-drug conjugates (36.7% of patients) and chemotherapy (26.7%). Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, elacestrant showed effectiveness and tolerability similar to data observed in the EMERALD trial. Larger prospective real-world analyses are warranted to further validate these findings and define optimal patient selection.