Abstract
The traditional approach to hormone receptor-positive (HR +)/HER2- negative metastatic breast cancer with visceral crisis has been cytotoxic chemotherapy, based on the assumption of more rapid efficacy. However, emerging evidence challenges this long-standing paradigm. This perspective critically evaluates recent data comparing CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy with chemotherapy in this challenging clinical scenario. Three recent clinical trials (RIGHT Choice, PADMA, and ABIGAIL) demonstrate improved progression-free survival and comparable response rates with CDK4/6 inhibitors versus chemotherapy in patients with aggressive disease features. Additionally, a direct retrospective comparison by Behrouzi et al. showed significantly better outcomes across all endpoints (TTF, PFS, and OS) with CDK4/6 inhibitors compared to weekly paclitaxel, with similar time to first improvement in organ dysfunction (3.9 vs 3.6 weeks). Supporting real-world evidence suggests a 5-month overall survival advantage with CDK4/6 inhibitors in visceral crisis. These convergent findings raise important questions about current treatment guidelines, which still recommend chemotherapy as the standard approach. The article examines the quality of available evidence, discusses potential reasons for reluctance to change practice patterns, and addresses remaining unanswered questions. While acknowledging limitations in the evidence base, including selection biases and lack of long-term survival data from randomized trials, this perspective proposes that CDK4/6 inhibitors represent a viable alternative to chemotherapy for carefully selected patients with HR+ /HER2- metastatic breast cancer and visceral crisis. A thoughtful, patient-centered approach considering disease characteristics, prior therapies, and the need for rapid response should guide treatment decisions while we await more definitive evidence.