Part IV · Molecular biology and therapeutic vulnerabilities · Chapter 14

Estrogen receptor signaling and endocrine resistance

The receptor is a transcription factor, and almost everything that goes wrong goes wrong after treatment starts.

1 · Genomic ER signaling, enhancers, pioneer factors, and the cistrome

The oestrogen receptor is a ligand-activated transcription factor whose binding is overwhelmingly distal rather than promoter-proximal. Chromosome-wide mapping placed most receptor binding events at sites remote from the genes they regulate, and showed that binding requires the forkhead protein FOXA1¹. The receptor does not open chromatin. It occupies chromatin that a pioneer factor has already opened.

This has one large consequence. The set of sites the receptor actually occupies in a given cell, its cistrome, is a property of that cell's chromatin state rather than of the receptor. The same protein therefore runs different programmes in different tumours, as well as in one tumour at different times.

The measurement consequence is worth separating out from the biology. An oestrogen receptor immunohistochemistry result reports how many tumour nuclei contain detectable receptor protein. It reports nothing about where that protein is bound, and nothing about whether transcription follows. Two tumours reported as 90% positive can have cistromes that overlap only partially.

That gap is where most of this chapter lives. A tumour can fail endocrine therapy with an entirely normal receptor, at an entirely normal level, because the sites available to it have changed. No assay in routine use detects that. The functional alternative, which measures receptor occupancy by ligand rather than receptor abundance in tissue, is imaging with fluoroestradiol², and it is discussed as a measurement problem in ER and PR testing, thresholds, and the ER-low category.

2 · Non-genomic and membrane-initiated signaling, including GPER

A fraction of receptor activity is not transcriptional. Oestrogen triggers kinase activation on a timescale too short for transcription to account for it, and several distinct receptors are implicated.

The variant hER-alpha36 lacks both transactivation domains and localises largely to the membrane. It transduces membrane-initiated mitogenic signalling in response to oestrogen, and in the original characterisation antioestrogens also activated this pathway rather than blocking it³.

GPER, also called GPR30, is a seven-transmembrane receptor that binds oestrogen and couples to a G protein⁴. Oestrogen acting through GPR30 activates ERK1 and ERK2 by transactivating the epidermal growth factor receptor, through release of heparin-binding EGF⁵. GPR30 is expressed in primary breast cancers and its expression has been related to clinicopathological determinants of progression⁶. Heregulin-beta1 upregulates GPR30 through the ErbB2 and ErbB3 route to MAPK⁷, so HER-family signalling feeds this arm as well.

3 · Coregulators and lineage factors, FOXA1, GATA3, NCOA, SPEN

The receptor arrives at chromatin as part of a complex. What that complex contains determines whether occupancy produces activation or repression, and it is the reason a selective modulator is not simply an antagonist.

FOXA1 sets where the receptor can bind. Its relationship to endocrine response is causal rather than merely associational⁸. GATA3 acts upstream of FOXA1, shaping the enhancer accessibility that FOXA1 then exploits⁹. These two factors define the luminal lineage and define the receptor's reach at the same time. Alterations in FOXA1 and in other regulators of the receptor's transcriptional machinery are enriched in tumours previously exposed to endocrine therapy¹⁰.

Coactivators supply the activating half. AIB1, also called SRC-3 and encoded by NCOA3, is activated by phosphorylation downstream of HER2. In 316 breast cancers assessed by western blot, high AIB1 was associated with longer disease-free survival in patients who received no adjuvant tamoxifen and with worse disease-free survival in those who did¹¹. Patients whose tumours were high for both AIB1 and HER2 did worst of all on tamoxifen.

Corepressors supply the other half. SPEN binds the receptor independently of ligand and represses transcription at its target genes. Across 101 primary breast tumours, 23% showed loss of heterozygosity at the SPEN locus and 3% to 4% carried somatic mutations, and high SPEN expression predicted favourable outcome in patients treated with tamoxifen alone¹².

The unifying statement is short. Tamoxifen's effect at any given binding site is determined by the coregulators recruited there. Resistance can therefore arise with the receptor present, unmutated and abundant.

4 · Progesterone receptor biology and its modifying role

Progesterone receptor is doing two jobs in a pathology report, and they are usually run together.

The first job is as a readout. PGR is an oestrogen receptor target gene, so its expression is partial evidence that the receptor pathway is transcriptionally intact rather than merely present. That is a measurement inference and not a mechanism.

The second job is as a mechanism in its own right. Liganded progesterone receptor associates with the oestrogen receptor and redirects its chromatin binding, which changes the transcriptional output of a receptor that has not itself changed¹³. Progesterone receptor is a modifier of the cistrome described in Genomic ER signaling, enhancers, pioneer factors, and the cistrome, not a passive marker of it.

Both jobs point the same way in a receptor-negative tumour and they point in different directions about what to do. A hormone receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative tumour may have a pathway that is less transcriptionally intact. It may also simply be missing the modifier. Nothing in a standard report separates these.

The guideline position treats progesterone receptor as primarily prognostic in the setting of an oestrogen receptor-positive cancer, and applies the same interpretive thresholds¹⁴. That convention is defensible as a reporting rule. It should not be read as a claim that the receptor's only biological role is informational.

5 · ESR1 mutations, fusions, and amplification as acquired resistance

This is the section the rest of the chapter is organised around. ESR1 alterations are acquired under treatment. They are not a property of the tumour that presented.

The evidence for that statement is direct. In 249 specimens from 208 patients, recurrent mutations in codons 537 and 538 of the ligand-binding domain were found in 12% of metastatic oestrogen receptor-positive samples, which was 9 of 76. In a subgroup who had received an average of seven lines of treatment the figure was 20%, which was 5 of 25. They were not detected in primary tumours, in treatment-naive receptor-positive cancer, or at any stage of receptor-negative disease¹⁵. The mutations were independently identified as constitutively activating, conferring ligand-independent receptor activity^16,17. Using high-sensitivity digital polymerase chain reaction on plasma, they were detected exclusively in patients previously exposed to an aromatase inhibitor¹⁸.

Prevalence rises with exposure. The comparisons below come from different cohorts and different assays rather than from one series.

In baseline plasma from the BOLERO-2 trial, all patients having had prior aromatase inhibitor therapy, 156 of 541 evaluable samples carried D538G or Y537S, which is 28.8%¹⁹. In SoFEA, where entry required prior sensitivity to a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, 63 of 161 patients were mutant, which is 39.1%. In PALOMA-3, 91 of 360 were mutant, which is 25.3%²⁰. In a real-world Austrian cohort of 184 patients, ESR1 mutations were found in 7.1% of samples taken before first-line treatment and 26.7% of samples taken before second line²¹.

Polyclonality is the other signature of selection. Among mutant patients, 49.1% in SoFEA and 28.6% in PALOMA-3 carried more than one ESR1 allele²⁰. Several independent mutant clones arise in parallel in one person, which is convergent evolution observed within a single patient Convergent and divergent evolution and what each implies for sequencing.

ESR1 rearrangements are a separate class with a sharper consequence. In a multimodal survey across tumour and plasma cohorts, 88 ESR1 rearrangements were identified in 83 patients, and every fusion broke in or near intron 6²². The resulting proteins therefore lack an intact ligand-binding domain, are ligand-independent and hyperactive, and are not addressable by any agent that acts through that domain. Recurrent ESR1-CCDC170 fusions have been characterised in the same setting²³.

ESR1 amplification is the least settled of the three. A tissue microarray of more than 2,000 breast cancers reported amplification in 20.6%, including in benign and precancerous breast lesions²⁴. Whether that frequency is reproducible has been contested since, and the disagreement is about how in situ hybridisation signals are counted rather than about whether the gene can be amplified.

6 · Ligand-independent activation and growth factor cross-talk

The receptor has a ligand-independent activation function that kinases can phosphorylate. Growth factor signalling therefore reaches the receptor without any change in oestrogen.

HER2 kinase signalling targets the receptor and promotes hormone-independent growth in receptor-positive cells²⁷. Tumours resistant to tamoxifen show increased cross-talk between the receptor and HER2²⁸. The IGF-1 receptor axis phosphorylates the receptor along similar lines²⁹. Kinase signalling also reduces receptor abundance, because FOXO3a drives ESR1 expression and is itself repressed by the HER2, PI3K and Akt route³⁰.

The most useful finding in this area is the one most often stated backwards. In tamoxifen-resistant tumours, growth factor receptor signalling is increased and classic genomic receptor function is repressed rather than amplified³¹. The resistant tumour is not simply running the same programme harder. It is running a different one, with the receptor recruited into it.

Population-scale sequencing gives the taxonomy its second axis. A study sequenced 1,918 breast cancers, of which 692 had been previously exposed to hormonal therapy. Activating ERBB2 mutations and NF1 loss-of-function mutations were more than twice as common in the endocrine-resistant tumours. Alterations in the MAPK pathway and in the receptor's transcriptional regulators together involved 22% of tumours¹⁰. These alterations were mutually exclusive with ESR1 mutations. They were also associated with a shorter duration of response to subsequent hormonal therapy.

Two non-overlapping routes therefore exist. One keeps the receptor central and alters it. The other bypasses it. A patient carries one or the other. That is an argument for sequencing the tumour rather than assuming which of them applies.

The traffic runs both ways, which is the point developed at length in ER and HER2 cross-talk, the bidirectional plane. Suppressing PI3K raises receptor transcriptional output and receptor dependence^32,33. Cross-talk is not an input into an otherwise autonomous pathway. It is a shared plane.

7 · ER-low and discordant receptor phenotypes

This section is about a boundary, so it is about measurement first.

The guideline threshold is 1%. Samples with 1% to 100% of tumour nuclei staining are reported as positive, samples below 1% as negative, and a separate reporting category of ER low positive was created for 1% to 10%¹⁴. The same document states that data on endocrine therapy benefit in the 1% to 10% band are limited, and asks laboratories to report control status for any case staining between 0% and 10%.

The reasoning behind the threshold is worth making explicit, because it is rarely written down. The boundary was set low to avoid withholding a well-tolerated and highly effective therapy from a patient who might benefit. It was not set at a point where the biology changes, because nobody has shown where that point is. This is the same category of decision as the ten percent convention for HER2 heterogeneity in Definitions and thresholds, spatial, clonal, and the ten percent convention, arrived at from the opposite direction.

Two practical consequences follow, and they are different problems.

The first is that a low-positive result is a weak predictor rather than a strong one. Treating it as equivalent to a strongly positive result overstates what the assay supports, and treating it as negative discards the guideline's explicit reasoning.

The second is discordance. A receptor result from the primary and a receptor result from a metastasis can disagree, and the causes include real biological change, sampling of a different compartment, and preanalytic variation. Distinguishing them is the subject of Receptor discordance and conversion and the analytic groundwork sits in Receptor assessment and the measurement problem.

8 · Lineage plasticity and loss of endocrine dependence

Endocrine dependence can be lost without any change in the receptor gene. Three situations are usually collapsed into one phrase, and they behave differently.

The first is loss of receptor protein. Only this one changes what a receptor assay reports. A fall in receptor expression at progression may be an accurate measurement of a population that treatment selected rather than a laboratory error Temporal heterogeneity and clonal evolution.

The second is retention of receptor protein with loss of its transcriptional output. The assay still reports positive. The pathway is no longer running. Cistromic reprogramming and coregulator changes produce this state. Nothing in routine practice detects it.

The third is retention of both, with dependence transferred elsewhere. The receptor is present and active and no longer necessary.

Plasticity supplies the mechanism for the second and third of those situations. Inhibition of the nuclear receptor NR2F2 restored hormone therapy response in endocrine-refractory models, which places lineage-factor identity upstream of endocrine sensitivity rather than downstream of it³⁴. In receptor-negative disease the androgen receptor can occupy the lineage-driver role, with FOXA1 again the common requirement³⁵. The chromatin biology that permits these transitions is developed in Epigenetics, transcriptional control, and lineage identity, and the reversibility question in Plasticity and non-genetic heterogeneity.

The clinical distinction that matters is whether the change is heritable. A genetic loss persists through drug-free passage. A state change reverts. Because no routine test separates them at progression, rechallenge decisions are currently made without knowing which situation applies.

9 · A working taxonomy of endocrine resistance

Primary and secondary resistance are clinical timing descriptions. They say when the treatment stopped working and nothing about why. A mechanistic taxonomy has four classes, and they differ in what detects them and in what acts on them.

1. Altered receptor, intact pathway. ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutations and ESR1 fusions. The

receptor signals without ligand. Detected in plasma. Acted on by receptor-directed agents, with the important exception that fusions lacking the ligand-binding domain are not²².

1. Intact receptor, rewired cistrome. Pioneer factor and coregulator changes involving FOXA1,

GATA3, NCOA3 and SPEN^8,9,11,12. Detected by no assay in routine use. This is the largest blind spot in the taxonomy.

1. Bypass. MAPK pathway alterations, activating ERBB2 mutations, NF1 loss and PI3K pathway

activation. Detected by sequencing. Mutually exclusive with ESR1 mutation in the largest cohort reported¹⁰, and acted on by agents directed at the bypass rather than at the receptor PI3K, AKT, mTOR, and related networks.

1. Lost dependence. Receptor loss or lineage change. Detected by repeat receptor assessment when

protein is lost, and by nothing when it is not. The endocrine strategy is exhausted Mechanisms of therapeutic resistance.

The controversy is about order rather than about membership. A common model holds that adaptive rewiring comes first and is fast and reversible, that cistromic reprogramming follows and is heritable through cell state, and that clonal lock-in by genetic alteration comes last. The model is attractive and the supporting evidence is indirect. ESR1 mutation prevalence rising across successive lines^21,20 is consistent with lock-in arriving late. Consistency is not demonstration, and no patient series has sampled all three layers serially in the same people.

References

1. Carroll JS, Liu XS, Brodsky AS, et al. Chromosome-wide mapping of estrogen receptor binding reveals long-range regulation requiring the forkhead protein FoxA1. Cell 2005 122:33-43. PMID 16009131
2. Parihar AS, et al. 18 F-Fluoroestradiol PET/CT for predicting benefit from endocrine therapy in patients with ER-positive breast cancer. J Nucl Med 2025. PMID 40081952
3. Wang Z, et al. A variant of estrogen receptor-α, hER-α36: transduction of estrogen- and antiestrogen-dependent membrane-initiated mitogenic signaling. PNAS 2006. PMID 16754886
4. Thomas P, et al. Identity of an estrogen membrane receptor coupled to a G protein in human breast cancer cells. Endocrinology 2005. PMID 15539556
5. Filardo EJ, et al. Estrogen-induced activation of Erk-1 and Erk-2 requires the G protein-coupled receptor homolog GPR30, via transactivation of the EGF receptor through release of HB-EGF. Mol Endocrinol 2000. PMID 11043579
6. Filardo EJ, et al. Distribution of GPR30, a seven membrane-spanning estrogen receptor, in primary breast cancer and its association with clinicopathologic determinants of tumor progression. Clin Cancer Res 2006. PMID 17085646
7. Ruan SQ, et al. Heregulin-β1-induced GPR30 upregulation promotes the migration and invasion potential of SkBr3 breast cancer cells via the ErbB2/ErbB3–MAPK/ERK pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2012. PMID 22425775
8. Hurtado A, Holmes KA, Ross-Innes CS, Schmidt D, Carroll JS. FOXA1 is a key determinant of estrogen receptor function and endocrine response. Nat Genet 2011 43:27-33. PMID 21151129
9. Theodorou V, Stark R, Menon S, Carroll JS. GATA3 acts upstream of FOXA1 in mediating ESR1 binding by shaping enhancer accessibility. Genome Res 2013 23:12-22. PMID 23172872
10. Razavi P, Chang MT, Xu G, et al. The genomic landscape of endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancers. Cancer Cell 2018 34:427-438. PMID 30205045
11. Osborne CK, Bardou V, Hopp TA, et al. Role of the estrogen receptor coactivator AIB1 (SRC-3) and HER-2/neu in tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003 95:353-361. PMID 12618500
12. Legare S, Cavallone L, Mamo A, et al. The estrogen receptor cofactor SPEN functions as a tumor suppressor and candidate biomarker of drug responsiveness in hormone-dependent breast cancers. Cancer Res 2015 75:4351-4363. PMID 26297734
13. Mohammed H, et al. Progesterone receptor modulates ERα action in breast cancer. Nature 2015. PMID 26153859
14. Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M, et al. Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer: ASCO/CAP guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2020 38:1346-1366. PMID 31928404
15. Jeselsohn R, Yelensky R, Buchwalter G, et al. Emergence of constitutively active estrogen receptor-alpha mutations in pretreated advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014 20:1757-1767. PMID 24398047
16. Toy W, Shen Y, Won H, et al. ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutations in hormone-resistant breast cancer. Nat Genet 2013 45:1439-1445. PMID 24185512
17. Robinson DR, Wu YM, Vats P, et al. Activating ESR1 mutations in hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer. Nat Genet 2013 45:1446-1451. PMID 24185510
18. Schiavon G, Hrebien S, Garcia-Murillas I, et al. Analysis of ESR1 mutation in circulating tumor DNA demonstrates evolution during therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Sci Transl Med 2015 7:313ra182. PMID 26560360
19. Chandarlapaty S, Chen D, He W, et al. Prevalence of ESR1 mutations in cell-free DNA and outcomes in metastatic breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the BOLERO-2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2016 2:1310-1315. PMID 27532364
20. Fribbens C, O'Leary B, Kilburn L, et al. Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016 34:2961-2968. PMID 27269946
21. Dobric N, Hasenleithner SO, Suppan C, et al. Integrating baseline ctDNA-derived tumor metrics enhances risk stratification in HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a real-world multicenter cohort study from Austria. ESMO Open 2026 11:106939. PMID 41922145
22. Hartmaier RJ, Trabucco SE, Priedigkeit N, et al. Recurrent hyperactive ESR1 fusion proteins in endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2018 29:872-880. PMID 29360925
23. Li L, et al. Therapeutic role of recurrent ESR1-CCDC170 gene fusions in breast cancer endocrine resistance. Breast Cancer Res 2020. PMID 32771039
24. Holst F, Stahl PR, Ruiz C, et al. Estrogen receptor alpha (ESR1) gene amplification is frequent in breast cancer. Nat Genet 2007 39:655-660. PMID 17417639
25. Turner NC, Mayer EL, Park YH, et al. Switching to camizestrant at ESR1 mutation emergence before disease progression during first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (SERENA-6). Lancet Oncol 2026. PMID 42442380
26. Bidard FC, Kaklamani VG, Neven P, et al. Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) versus standard endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III EMERALD trial. J Clin Oncol 2022 40:3246-3256. PMID 35584336
27. Pietras RJ, et al. HER-2 tyrosine kinase pathway targets estrogen receptor and promotes hormone-independent growth in human breast cancer cells. Oncogene 1995. PMID 7784095
28. Shou J, et al. Mechanisms of tamoxifen resistance: increased estrogen receptor–HER2/neu cross-talk in ER/HER2-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004. PMID 15199112
29. Lee AV, et al. Mol Endocrinol 1999. PMID 10319328
30. Guo S, Sonenshein GE. FOXO3a regulates estrogen receptor alpha expression and is repressed by the Her-2/neu/PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Mol Cell Biol 2004. PMID 15367686
31. Massarweh S, et al. Tamoxifen resistance in breast tumors is driven by growth factor receptor signaling with repression of classic estrogen receptor genomic function. Cancer Res 2008. PMID 18245484
32. Bosch A, Li Z, Bergamaschi A, et al. PI3K inhibition results in enhanced estrogen receptor function and dependence in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Sci Transl Med 2015 7:283ra51. PMID 25877889
33. Toska E, et al. PI3K pathway regulates ER-dependent transcription in breast cancer through the epigenetic regulator KMT2D. Science 2017. PMID 28336670
34. Cai Y, et al. Inhibition of NR2F2 restores hormone therapy response to endocrine refractory breast cancers. Sci Transl Med 2025. PMID 40465692
35. Ni M, et al. Targeting androgen receptor in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Cancer Cell 2011. PMID 21741601