Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Triple-negative breast cancer: recent treatment advances

Alice R T Bergin, Sherene Loi

F1000Research · 2019 · Review

doi:10.12688/f1000research.18888.1

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a breast cancer subtype renowned for its capacity to affect younger women, metastasise early despite optimal adjuvant treatment and carry a poor prognosis. Neoadjuvant therapy has focused on combinations of systemic agents to optimise pathological complete response. Treatment algorithms now guide the management of patients with or without residual disease, but metastatic TNBC continues to harbour a poor prognosis. Innovative, multi-drug combination systemic therapies in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings have led to significant improvements in outcomes, particularly over the past decade. Recently published advances in the treatment of metastatic TNBC have shown impressive results with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and immunotherapy agents. Immunotherapy agents in combination with traditional systemic chemotherapy have been shown to alter the natural history of this devastating condition, particularly in patients whose tumours are positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1).

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a molecularly diverse breast cancer subtype currently defined by what it lacks. With hormone receptor immunohistochemistry (IHC) stains of less than 1% for oestrogen and progesterone and the absence of HER2 protein overexpression or HER2 gene amplification (or both), TNBC accounts for 12 to 17% of all breast cancers, typically affects younger women and typically carries a poor prognosis. Metastatic progression in this phenotype is typically marked by early relapse and a predominance of hepatic, pulmonary and central nervous system metastasis.

Despite, or perhaps because of, its aggressive nature and the lack of current targeted treatments, significant clinical and laboratory research is providing nuanced treatment options. Historically, chemotherapy has been the only viable systemic treatment option for early and advanced disease. However, recently published clinical trials have shown that immunotherapy has an important role in the treatment paradigm of this devastating condition.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage disease and optimising rates of pathological complete response

Although it is generally accepted that early-stage TNBC is chemotherapy-sensitive, the optimal treatment regimen remains undefined. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a standard of care for a locally advanced or inoperable TNBC. A major advantage of this approach is the ability to pre-emptively predict survival according to the presence or absence of a pathological complete response (pCR) at the time of surgery and tailor adjuvant therapy. Patients with TNBC, as opposed to those with the luminal subtypes, are more likely to achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Achieving pCR (defined as no invasive or in situ disease in the breast or lymph nodes) at the time of surgery is associated with a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) –; as such, pCR is considered a surrogate outcome end point. However, it is unclear whether changes in pCR will ultimately equate to improvements in overall survival (OS) and thus the use of pCR as a robust trial end point is debated.

Clinicians often adopt an intensive approach with sequential anthracycline and taxane regimens and the evidence for this derives from retrospective, subgroup analyses of clinical trials reported before 2010 ( Table 1).

Anthracyclines alone had reported pCR rates of 14 to 47%,, whereas sequential anthracycline and taxane regimens had reported pCR rates of 17 to 39%, –. GeparTrio reported pCR rates up to 57% for TNBC managed with neoadjuvant anthracyclines, cyclophosphamide and taxanes. Since then, clinical trials have attempted to define which combination of systemic agents results in the highest rates of pCR ( Table 2).

Alkylating agents like carboplatin and cisplatin have provided additional improvements in rates of pCR. Given that a proportion of TNBC tumours have a functional alteration in breast cancer gene 1 ( BRCA1), analysis of the role of inter-strand cross-linking agents is especially prudent. The coupling of platinum-induced DNA damage and deficiencies in BRCA-associated DNA repair has been exploited in phase 2 trials of platinum monotherapy and yielded promising pCR rates of 23 to 90%,,, and rates of pCR were higher amongst BRCA mutation carriers,. Although the randomised phase 2 GEICAM 2006-03 did not lead to a significant improvement in pCR, GeparSixto and CALGB 40603 reported higher rates of pCR with the addition of carboplatin. It is important to note that the addition of carboplatin in these trials led to a significant increase in toxicity and that, for CALGB 40603, the improved pCR rate translated into a modest 5% improvement in 3-year event-free survival, which was not statistically significant.

In further attempts to manipulate homologous recombination deficiencies inherent to BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutant tumours, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been added to the neoadjuvant cocktail. PARP inhibitors act by inducing synthetic lethality in BRCA-deficient cells whilst sparing cells with preserved BRCA function. The phase 3 BrighTNess clinical trial saw a pCR improvement that was attributable to carboplatin rather than the PARP inhibitor under investigation, veliparib. PrECOG 0105, a single-arm phase 2 clinical trial of gemcitabine, carboplatin and iniparib, yielded a promising pCR of 36%, and response rates were higher in those tumours with elevated mean homologous recombination deficiency-loss of heterozygosity (HRD-LOH) scores, a DNA-based measure of genomic instability,. Although iniparib is no longer considered a true PARP inhibitor –, these results are compelling. It is possible that the different PARP agents will have differing efficacy because of PARP trapping. Certainly, promising pCR rates were seen in patients with germline BRCA-mutated early-stage breast cancers with just talozparib alone.

Novel agents like the monoclonal antibodies bevacizumab, panitumumab and cetuximab have been assessed with mixed results ( Table 2). The randomised phase 3 GeparQuinto reported that an improvement was seen in rates of pCR with the addition of bevacizumab, but the survival analysis did not show a significant difference.

Managing residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Although attaining pCR is the goal of neoadjuvant therapy, optimal management of those who do not meet this end point is critical as these patients have a relapse risk that is six to nine times higher than that of patients achieving pCR,.

The CREATE-X clinical trial showed that six to eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine (1250 mg/m 2 from days 1 to 14, every 21 days) improved DFS and OS in the TNBC cohort. DFS rates were 69.8% in the capecitabine arm and 56.1% in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58 for recurrence, second cancer, or death; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39–0.87), and OS rates were 78.8% and 70.3% (HR 0.52 for death, 95% CI 0.3–0.9). The importance of targeting adjuvant capecitabine to those with residual disease was recently highlighted by the results of the phase 3 GEICAM/CIBOMA trial. This randomised phase 3 trial of 876 patients who had early-stage TNBC and who had completed standard adjuvant or neoadjuvant polychemotherapy was designed to analyse the impact of adjuvant capecitabine (1000 mg/m 2 from days 1 to 14, every 21 days) for all patients with TNBC regardless of their pCR status. There was no significant difference in 5-year DFS and OS between the treatment groups, highlighting the need to choose a treatment-resistant group. The results of the CREATE-X trial now compel most clinicians to treat early-stage TNBC with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in order to understand who should have capecitabine. Whilst capecitabine should be considered, ongoing trials are evaluating new agents for TNBC with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Does immunotherapy (CTLA4 and PD-(L)1 inhibitors) improve pathological complete response?

The programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab and the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab are monoclonal antibodies designed to release inhibition of the PD-1/PD-L1–mediated immune response, whereas ipilimumab releases inhibition of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4)-mediated immune response. TNBC tumour cells use the PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA4 immune pathways to avoid immune surveillance and proliferate but these monoclonal antibodies facilitate an effective immune-mediated and anti-tumour response.

Pembrolizumab combined with anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy has pushed the pCR boundary even further. Impressive pCR rates of up to 90% have been reported in phase 1b and 2 clinical trials ( Table 3).

Patient selection for the optimal use of these agents is important and will likely be critical to their success in terms of DFS and OS outcomes, as seen in the CREATE-X and GEICAM-CIBOMA trials. The BCT 1702-CHARIOT clinical trial (ANZCTR N12617000651381) was designed to help guide clinicians in the management of patients with TNBC that is not responding to standard neoadjuvant therapy. The phase 2 clinical trial combines paclitaxel with ipilimumab and nivolumab in eligible patients with a residual TNBC of at least 15 mm and less than 50% reduction in longest diameter of the tumour after completion of four standard cycles of anthracycline chemotherapy. The trial is designed to select out the most at-risk TNBC population to see whether they can derive benefit from the novel combination of therapies as these patients have been reported to have pCR rates of less than 10% and hence the highest risk of dying from their disease,. Furthermore, selection and duration of these myriad adjuvant therapies will be important to delineate as the outcomes of ongoing clinical trials ( Table 4) are eagerly awaited.

Systemic therapy for metastatic disease

Patients with metastatic TNBC experience poorer outcomes when compared with patients with other breast cancer subtypes. First-line systemic treatment typically includes a taxane or anthracycline combination, and median OS tends to be 18 months or less –. Novel treatment approaches are critical to improve these dire survival outcomes.

Role of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and chemotherapy for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

The OlympiAD clinical trial randomly assigned patients with advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation to a PARP inhibitor, olaparib (300 mg twice daily), or standard physician’s choice chemotherapy. The significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit favoured olaparib with a median PFS of 7.2 months (versus 4.2 months). Subgroup analysis of PFS for randomised stratification factors revealed an outstanding HR for progression of 0.39 (95% CI 0.27–0.57) amongst the TNBC subset, which made up nearly 50% of the treatment cohorts in both arms.

The EMBRACA clinical trial compared the PARP inhibitor talazoparib (1 mg daily) with protocol-specified standard therapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine or vinorelbine) and found a favourable median PFS of 8.6 versus 5.6 months in the standard therapy group (HR for progression or death 0.54, 95% CI 0.41–0.71) with a trend towards an OS benefit, but the data are immature. Although rates of adverse events were similar in the two treatment arms, patients randomly assigned to talazoparib reported superior quality-of-life outcomes (as recorded by the EORTC QLQ-C30) with a significant delay in the onset of a clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status.

The results of the randomised phase 3 trials BRAVO (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01905592) using niraparib 300 mg daily versus chemotherapy and BROCADE (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02163694) using veliparib or placebo combined with chemotherapy in a similar cohort (germline BRCA mutation-positive) are still pending.

The addition of iniparib to gemcitabine and carboplatin has shown promising results for all patients with metastatic TNBC regardless of their BRCA mutation status. A randomised phase 2 clinical trial showed that the addition of iniparib prolonged the median PFS from 3.6 to 5.9 months (HR for progression, 0.59; P = 0.01) and the median OS from 7.7 to 12.3 months (HR for death, 0.57; P = 0.01). The phase 3 clinical trial did not meet the pre-specified co-primary end points, PFS and OS, but did report an efficacy signal for patients randomly assigned to second- or third-line PARP inhibitor therapy. This is likely because iniparib is no longer considered a true PARP inhibitor for the purposes of clinical research. Although iniparib inhibited PARP-1 function in vitro and was tested in clinical trials for this reason, subsequent studies have shown that the cell killing mechanism of iniparib does not reflect PARP inhibition –.

Notably, the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Trial (TNT) has provided important insights into the role of platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 376 patients with either a known deleterious BRCA1/2 germline mutation (and any metastatic breast cancer phenotype) or metastatic TNBC. Although no significant difference was seen in the overall TNT population, a significantly better objective response rate of 68% to carboplatin versus 33% to docetaxel was found amongst the 43 patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. Furthermore, within this population, a PFS benefit favouring carboplatin (median PFS of 6.8 versus 4.4 months) was found without a corresponding OS benefit. Once again, the benefit was not reflected in the overall TNT population, where there was no significant PFS or OS advantage to either agent.

IMpassion 130: Will immunotherapy be the winner for advanced triple-negative breast cancer too?

Prior to October 2018, phase 1 and 2 clinical trials evaluating PD-1 protein blockade as monotherapy in advanced TNBC showed disappointing response rates of 5 to 10% in unselected cohorts –. These poor response rates likely reflect that breast cancer is not a highly immunogenic solid organ malignancy. This has been thought to underlie the modest response rates seen with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy to date; as a result, patients with advanced breast cancer need to be selected for the presence of pre-existing activity of the host immune system,. The complexity of this response, when analysed in more detail, is apparent; however, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) simply measured by using light microscopy on hematoxylin-and-eosin–stained slides particularly have provided important insights into this variable response rate. TILs are mononuclear immune cells that infiltrate tumour tissue and are composed mainly of CD4 + and CD8 + (cytotoxic) T cells. TILs are an independent prognostic biomarker in breast cancer, and in early-stage, node-positive TNBC, high TILs correlatewith improved survival,. In addition to TILs, PD-1 and PD-L1 can be expressed by tumour cells and their presence can be evaluated as part of a detailed pathological examination of the tumour by using proprietary IHC assays,. In metastatic TNBC, better response rates were noted with pembrolizumab monotherapy in tumours with higher quantitative levels of TILs. Ultimately, it is highly likely that all of these immune markers read out a similar signal for selecting patients most likely to respond to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition or both.

The recent approval of atezolizumab in advanced TNBC was based on the IMpassion 130 study. IMpassion 130 was a phase 3 registration study that randomly assigned over 900 patients with incurable TNBC who had relapsed 12 months or more after adjuvant chemotherapy to receive either nab-paclitaxel and atezolizumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) or nab-paclitaxel and placebo. A statistically superior PFS benefit was seen: median PFS values of 7.2 months (95% CI 5.6–7.2 months) in the atezolizumab and taxane arm and 5.5 months (95% CI 5.3–5.6 months) with chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.69–0.92; P = 0.0025) were reported; among the PD-L1–positive tumours, median PFS values of 7.5 months (95% CI 6.7–9.2 months) and 5 months (95% CI 3.8–5.6 months) were reported (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.49–0.78; P <0.0001); hence, the primary end point of the study was met. Interim OS analysis (60% of events) already showed a trend towards the atezolizumab and taxane combination with median OS values of 21.3 and 17.6 months (stratified HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69–1.02). Furthermore, 40% of the population did not receive any prior chemotherapy. It is likely that this group of patients with metastatic TNBC does much better both in general and with immunotherapy. Still, the first steps have been taken in the field, and we have much work to do to positively impact survival in this population.

What can we expect next?

Recently, the treatment of both early and advanced TNBC has seen significant improvements in response rates and survival outcomes. The time has now come to stratify and personalise patient management according to response for early-stage disease and to the presence or absence of an immune infiltrate for advanced disease.

Patients with early-stage disease who do not achieve pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be offered six to eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy, in accordance with the CREATE-X trial. For patients with advanced disease who are PD-L1 +, CD8 +, or TIL +, optimal treatment would include up-front atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel. Exposure to a PD-1 or PD-L1 agent (or both) is likely still important for survival in patients who do not receive the combination in the first-line setting. Whether those who have a positive immune infiltrate and a disease-free interval of less than 12 months benefit from this regimen is unknown. Those without a positive immune infiltrate should be referred for a clinical trial that uses combinations of novel agents, chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The TNBC treatment landscape is an ever-evolving space, which epitomises the crucial relationship between laboratory and clinical research. The complex interplay has enabled practise-changing advances in treatment outcomes not seen in TNBC for decades.

Abbreviations

BRCA, breast cancer gene; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; PARP, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase; pCR, pathological complete response; PD-1, programmed cell death 1; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; TIL, tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer

References 77

  1. 1.

    Pareja F Reis-Filho JS: Triple-negative breast cancers - a panoply of cancer types. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(6):347–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41571-018-0001-7

  2. 2.

    Hammond ME Hayes DF Dowsett M: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):2784–95.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2009.25.6529

  3. 3.

    Wolff AC Hammond MEH Allison KH: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2105–22.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2018.77.8738

  4. 4.

    Foulkes WD Smith IE Reis-Filho JS: Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmra1001389

  5. 5.

    Haffty BG Yang Q Reiss M: Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5652–7.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2006.06.5664

  6. 6.

    Liedtke C Mazouni C Hess KR: Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2007.14.4147

  7. 7.

    von Minckwitz G Untch M Blohmer JU: Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796–804.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2011.38.8595

  8. 8.

    Cortazar P Zhang L Untch M: Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8

  9. 9.

    Spring LM Fell G Arfe A: Abstract GS2-03: Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and mortality, stratified by breast cancer subtypes and adjuvant chemotherapy usage: Individual patient-level meta-analyses of over 27,000 patients. Cancer Res. 2019;79(4 Supplement):GS2–03.

    Not in our library10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-gs2-03

  10. 10.

    Le Tourneau C Dettwiler S Laurence V: 47% pathologic complete response rate to anthracyclines based associated with high cyclophosphamide doses neoadjuvant chemotherapy in basal-like and triple negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;106(1):abstract 4010.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Bidard FC Matthieu MC Chollet P: p53 status and efficacy of primary anthracyclines/alkylating agent-based regimen according to breast cancer molecular classes. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(7):1261–5.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdn039

  12. 12.

    Fernandez-Morales LA Dalmau E Martinez S: Analysis of the pathological response to primary chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) grouped according to ER, PR and HER2 status. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18_suppl):626–6. Reference Source 16401682

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    Carey LA Dees EC Sawyer L: The Triple Negative Paradox: Primary Tumor Chemosensitivity of Breast Cancer Subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2329–34.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-1109

  14. 14.
    Prognostic impact of clinicopathologic parameters in stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and doxorubicin chemotherapy: paradoxical features of the triple negative breast cancer · 2007
    No notice
  15. 15.

    Esserman LJ Perou C Cheang M: Breast cancer molecular profiles and tumor response of neoadjuvant doxorubicin and paclitaxel: The I-SPY TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657). JCO. 2009;27:LBA515–LBA515.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2009.27.18_suppl.lba515

  16. 16.

    Wang S Yang H Tong F: Response to neoadjuvant therapy and disease free survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2009;36(2):255–8.

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    Straver ME Glas AM Hannemann J: The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):551–8.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-009-0333-1

  18. 18.

    Huober J von Minckwitz G Denkert C: Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124(1):133–40.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-010-1103-9

  19. 19.

    Rouzier R: Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes Respond Differently to Preoperative Chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(16):5678–85.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-04-2421

  20. 20.

    Garber JE Richardson A Harris LN: Neo-adjuvant cisplatin (CDDP) in “triple-negative” breast cancer (BC). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;100(1): abstract 3074.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    Sikov WM Fenton MA Strenger R: Preliminary recurrence and survival analysis of patients (pts) receiving neoadjuvant q4week carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel þ weekly trastuzumab in resectable and locally advanced breast cancer: update of BrUOG BR-95. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;106: abstract 506.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    Torrisi R Balduzzi A Ghisini R: Tailored preoperative treatment of locally advanced triple negative (hormone receptor negative and HER2 negative) breast cancer with epirubicin, cisplatin, and infusional fluorouracil followed by weekly paclitaxel. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;62(4):667–72.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00280-007-0652-z

  23. 23.

    Leone JP Guardiola V Venkatraman A: Neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) for triple-negative locally advanced breast cancer (LABC): Retrospective analysis of 125 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15_suppl):625–5. Reference Source

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    Byrski T Huzarski T Dent R: Response to neoadjuvant therapy with cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):359–63.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-008-0128-9

  25. 25.

    Loibl S O'Shaughnessy J Untch M: Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): A randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):497–509.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30111-6

  26. 26.

    Litton JK Scoggins M Hess KR: Neoadjuvant talazoparib (TALA) for operable breast cancer patients with a BRCA mutation (BRCA+). JCO. 2018;36(15_suppl):508

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.508

  27. 27.

    Untch M Jackisch C Schneeweiss A: Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): A randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:345–56.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00542-2

  28. 28.

    Gianni L Mansutti M Anton A: Comparing Neoadjuvant Nab-paclitaxel vs Paclitaxel Both Followed by Anthracycline Regimens in Women With ERBB2/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer-The Evaluating Treatment With Neoadjuvant Abraxane (ETNA) Trial: A Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(3):302–8.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4612

  29. 29.

    Gluz O Nitz U Liedtke C: Comparison of Neoadjuvant Nab-Paclitaxel+Carboplatin vs Nab-Paclitaxel+Gemcitabine in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Randomized WSG-ADAPT-TN Trial Results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(6):628–637.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djx258

  30. 30.

    Zhang P Yin Y Mo H: Better pathologic complete response and relapse-free survival after carboplatin plus paclitaxel compared with epirubicin plus paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer: A randomized phase 2 trial. Oncotarget. 2016;7(37):60647–56.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.10607

  31. 31.

    Alba E Chacon JI Lluch A: A randomized phase II trial of platinum salts in basal-like breast cancer patients in the neoadjuvant setting. Results from the GEICAM/2006-03, multicenter study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(2):487–93.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-012-2100-y

  32. 32.

    Silver DP Richardson AL Eklund AC: Efficacy of neoadjuvant Cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1145–53.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2009.22.4725

  33. 33.

    Werner TL Ray A Lamb JG: A Phase I Study of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Nab-Paclitaxel, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide in Patients With Stage II to III Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17(7):503–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.clbc.2017.04.010

  34. 34.

    Telli ML Jensen KC Vinayak S: Phase II Study of Gemcitabine, Carboplatin, and Iniparib As Neoadjuvant Therapy for Triple-Negative and BRCA1/2 Mutation-Associated Breast Cancer With Assessment of a Tumor-Based Measure of Genomic Instability: PrECOG 0105. JCO. 2015;33(17):1895–901.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.57.0085

  35. 35.

    Sikov WM Berry DA Perou CM: Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):13–21.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.57.0572

  36. 36.

    Jovanović B Mayer IA Mayer EL: A Randomized Phase II Neoadjuvant Study of Cisplatin, Paclitaxel With or Without Everolimus in Patients with Stage II/III Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC): Responses and Long-term Outcome Correlated with Increased Frequency of DNA Damage Response Gene Mutations, TNBC Subtype, AR Status, and Ki67. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):4035–45.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-3055

  37. 37.

    Nabholtz JM Chalabi N Radosevic-Robin N: Multicentric neoadjuvant pilot Phase II study of cetuximab combined with docetaxel in operable triple negative breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(9):2274–80.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.29952

  38. 38.

    Gerber B Loibl S Eidtmann H: Neoadjuvant bevacizumab and anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in 678 triple-negative primary breast cancers; results from the geparquinto study (GBG 44). Ann Oncol. 2013;24(12):2978–84.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdt361

  39. 39.

    Nabholtz JM Abrial C Mouret-Reynier MA: Multicentric neoadjuvant phase II study of panitumumab combined with an anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy in operable triple-negative breast cancer: identification of biologically defined signatures predicting treatment impact. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(8):1570–7.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdu183

  40. 40.

    von Minckwitz G Schneeweiss A Loibl S: Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):747–56.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70160-3

  41. 41.

    Telli ML Timms KM Reid J: Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD) Score Predicts Response to Platinum-Containing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3764–73.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-2477

  42. 42.

    Liu X Shi Y Maag DX: Iniparib nonselectively modifies cysteine-containing proteins in tumor cells and is not a bona fide PARP inhibitor. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(2):510–23.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-1973

  43. 43.

    Patel AG De Lorenzo SB Flatten KS: Failure of iniparib to inhibit poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase in vitro. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(6):1655–62.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-2890

  44. 44.

    Pierce A McGowan PM Cotter M: Comparative antiproliferative effects of iniparib and olaparib on a panel of triple-negative and non-triple-negative breast cancer cell lines. Cancer Biol Ther. 2013;14(6):537–45.

    Not in our library10.4161/cbt.24349

  45. 45.

    Tutt A: Inhibited, trapped or adducted: the optimal selective synthetic lethal mix for BRCAness. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):18–21.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdx775

  46. 46.

    Masuda N Lee SJ Ohtani S: Adjuvant Capecitabine for Breast Cancer after Preoperative Chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147–59.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1612645

  47. 47.

    Martín M Barrios CH Torrecillas L: Abstract GS2-04: Efficacy results from CIBOMA/2004-01_GEICAM/2003-11 study: A randomized phase III trial assessing adjuvant capecitabine after standard chemotherapy for patients with early triple negative breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2019; Feb 15;79(4 Supplement):GS2–04.

    Not in our library10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-gs2-04

  48. 48.

    Chen DS Mellman I: Oncology Meets Immunology: The Cancer-Immunity Cycle. Immunity. 2013;39(1):1–10.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.012

  49. 49.

    von Minckwitz G Kümmel S Vogel P: Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(8):552–62.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djn089

  50. 50.

    von Minckwitz G Blohmer JU Costa SD: Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(29):3623–30.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2012.45.0940

  51. 51.

    den Brok WD Speers CH Gondara L: Survival with metastatic breast cancer based on initial presentation, de novo versus relapsed. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(3):549–56.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-016-4080-9

  52. 52.

    Nanda R Liu MC Yau C: Pembrolizumab plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer (BC): Results from I-SPY 2. JCO. 2017;35:506

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.506

  53. 53.

    Schmid P Park YH Muñoz-Couselo E: Pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) as neoadjuvant treatment for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC): Preliminary results from KEYNOTE-173. JCO. 2017;35:556

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.556

  54. 54.

    Schmid P Park YH Muñoz-Couselo E: Abstract PD5-01: KEYNOTE-173: Phase 1b multicohort study of pembrolizumab (Pembro) in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cancer Res. 2019;79(4 Supplement):PD5–01.

    Not in our library10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-pd5-01

  55. 55.

    Cardoso F Senkus E Costa A: 4th ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4)†. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1634–57.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdy192

  56. 56.

    Gobbini E Ezzalfani M Dieras V: Time trends of overall survival among metastatic breast cancer patients in the real-life ESME cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2018;96:17–24.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2018.03.015

  57. 57.

    Yardley DA Coleman R Conte P: nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1763–70.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdy201

  58. 58.

    Miles DW Diéras V Cortés J: First-line bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: pooled and subgroup analyses of data from 2447 patients. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(11):2773–80.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdt276

  59. 59.

    Robson M Im SA Senkus E: Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–33.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1706450

  60. 60.

    Litton JK Rugo HS Ettl J: Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):753–63.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1802905

  61. 61.

    Sandhu SK Schelman WR Wilding G: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib (MK4827) in BRCA mutation carriers and patients with sporadic cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(9):882–92.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70240-7

  62. 62.

    O'Shaughnessy J Osborne C Pippen JE: Iniparib plus chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(3):205–14.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1011418

  63. 63.

    Tutt A Tovey H Cheang MCU: Carboplatin in BRCA1/2-mutated and triple-negative breast cancer BRCAness subgroups: the TNT Trial. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):628–37.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-018-0009-7

  64. 64.
    Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1b JAVELIN Solid Tumor study · 2017
    No notice
  65. 65.

    Adams S Schmid P Rugo HS: Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): KEYNOTE-086 cohort A. JCO. 2017;35:1008

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.1008

  66. 66.

    Emens LA Cruz C Eder JP: Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Biomarker Analyses of Atezolizumab Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Phase 1 Study. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(1):74–82.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4224

  67. 67.

    Martincorena I Campbell PJ: Somatic mutation in cancer and normal cells. Science. 2015;349(6255):1483–9.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aab4082

  68. 68.

    Adams S Loi S Toppmeyer D: Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): Preliminary data from KEYNOTE-086 cohort B. JCO. 2017;35(15_suppl):1088

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.1088

  69. 69.

    Schmid P Cruz C Braiteh FS: Abstract 2986: Atezolizumab in metastatic TNBC (mTNBC): Long-term clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses. Cancer Res. 2017;77(13 Supplement):2986

    Not in our library10.1158/1538-7445.am2017-2986

  70. 70.

    Salgado R Denkert C Demaria S: The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):259–71.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdu450

  71. 71.

    Ruffell B Au A Rugo HS: Leukocyte composition of human breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(8):2796–801.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1104303108

  72. 72.

    Loi S Sirtaine N Piette F: Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in a phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial in node-positive breast cancer comparing the addition of docetaxel to doxorubicin with doxorubicin-based chemotherapy: BIG 02-98. JCO. 2013;31(7):860–7.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2011.41.0902

  73. 73.

    Loi S Michiels S Salgado R: Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes are prognostic in triple negative breast cancer and predictive for trastuzumab benefit in early breast cancer: results from the FinHER trial. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(8):1544–50.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdu112

  74. 74.

    Gatalica Z Snyder C Maney T: Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) in common cancers and their correlation with molecular cancer type. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(12):2965–70.

    Not in our library10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0654

  75. 75.

    Patel SP Kurzrock R: PD-L1 Expression as a Predictive Biomarker in Cancer Immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(4):847–56.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-14-0983

  76. 76.

    Loi S Adams S Schmid P: LBA13Relationship between tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) levels and response to pembrolizumab (pembro) in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): Results from KEYNOTE-086. Ann Oncol. 2017;28

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdx440.005

  77. 77.

    Schmid P Adams S Rugo HS: Atezolizumab and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2108–21.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1809615

Cited by papers we hold 4

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.