By the end of 2020, there were more than 8 million women alive who had received a breast cancer diagnosis in the previous 5 years, making it the most prevalent neoplasia in the world. About 70% of breast-cancer cases present positivity for estrogen and/or progesterone receptors and a lack of HER-2 overexpression. Endocrine therapy has traditionally been the standard of care for ER-positive and HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer. In the last 8 years, the advent of CDK4/6 inhibitors has shown that adding them to endocrine therapy doubles PFS. As a result, this combination has become the gold standard in this setting. Three CDK4/6 inhibitors have been approved by the EMA and the FDA: abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib. They all have the same indications, and it is at each physician’s discretion to choose one or the other. The aim of our study was to perform a comparative efficacy analysis of the three CDK4/6i using real-world data. We selected patients diagnosed with endocrine-receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated with all three CDK4/6i as first-line therapy at a reference center. After 42 months of retrospective follow up, abemaciclib was associated with a significant benefit in terms of progression-free survival in endocrine-resistant patients and in the population without visceral involvement. In our real-world cohort, we found no other statistically significant differences among the three CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent tumors among women. Its prognosis and treatment outcomes depend on factors related to tumor cell biology. However, recent studies have revealed the critical role of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in the development, progression, and treatment response of breast cancer. In this review, we explore the different components of the TME and their relevance as prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer. In addition, techniques for assessing the tumor microenvironment, such as immunohistochemistry or gene expression profiling, and their clinical utility in therapeutic decision-making are examined. Finally, therapeutic strategies targeting the TME are reviewed, highlighting their potential clinical benefits. Overall, this review emphasizes the importance of the TME in breast cancer and its potential as a clinical tool for better patient stratification and the design of personalized therapies.

Background: Reduced muscle strength (dynapenia) and mass (atrophy) are prognostic factors in oncology. Measuring maximal handgrip strength with dynamometers is feasible but limited by the cost of the reference device (JAMAR). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on colorectal cancer outpatients treated with chemotherapy or under active surveillance in our center from September 2022 to July 2023. Accuracy, reliability, and concordance were compared for two handheld dynamometers: the JAMAR Plus (the gold-standard device) and the Camry EH101 (a low-cost index device). A simultaneous nutritional diagnosis with GLIM criteria and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was carried out. Results: A total of 134 participants were included. The median of maximal strength for the JAMAR Plus had a non-significant difference of 1.4 kg from the Camry EH101. The accuracy and reliability of the devices were high. Bland–Altman analysis showed a 0.8 kg bias and −4.1 to 5.6 kg limits of agreement (LoA); a 0.1 kg bias and −5.3 to 5.4 kg LoA in men; a 1.5 kg bias and −2.2 to 5.3 kg LoA in women. In total, 29.85% of the participants were malnourished. Prevalence of dynapenia increased from 3.67% with the JAMAR Plus to 5.14% with the Camry EH101. Both devices had a moderate and significant correlation with BIA-estimated muscle mass. Conclusions: The Camry EH101 was a cost-effective alternative to JAMAR Plus in our sample.

Purpose: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has conducted a study on the access to oncologic drugs across the 17 Spanish Regions with the aim of identifying potential heterogeneities and making proposals for eliminating the barriers identified at the different levels. Methods: An Expert Panel made up of medical oncologists designed a survey on certain indications approved for 11 drugs in the approach of breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, prostate cancer and support treatment. This survey was sent to 144 National Health System (NHS) hospitals. Results: 77 hospitals answered the survey. The information modules analysed were: scope of the Commission that establishes binding decisions related to drug access; conditions, stages and periods of drug application, approval and administration processes; barriers to accessing drugs. Conclusions: The study shows variability in drug access. The SEOM makes proposals addressed to reducing the differences identified and homogenizing drug access conditions.