A review of current progress in triple-negative breast cancer therapy

Meiying Shen; Huawen Pan; Yuxia Chen; Yu Hang Xu; Weixiong Yang; Zhaojun Wu

doi:10.1515/med-2020-0138

Article Open Access

A review of current progress in triple-negative breast cancer therapy

Meiying Shen , Huawen Pan , Yuxia Chen , Yu Hang Xu , Weixiong Yang and Zhaojun Wu

Published/Copyright: November 14, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Medicine Volume 15 Issue 1

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a particularly aggressive subtype known for its extremely high drug resistance, progression, poor prognosis, and lack of clear therapeutic targets. Researchers are aiming to advance TNBC treatment worldwide. In the past 2–3 years, more positive results have emerged in the clinical research on TNBC treatment. Based on the results, several impressive drugs have been approved to benefit patients with TNBC, including the PARP inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib for germline BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer (gBRCAm-BC) and immunotherapy using the checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel for programmed cell death-ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) advanced TNBC. Although neoadjuvant therapy has focused on combinations of systemic agents to optimize pathologically complete response, metastatic TNBC still has a poor prognosis. Innovative multidrug combination systemic therapies based on neoadjuvants and adjuvants have led to significant improvements in outcomes, particularly over the past decade.

Keywords: triple-negative breast cancer; PARP inhibition; immunotherapy; adjuvant therapy

1 Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of expression of the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) receptor [1]. Although the breast cancer (BC) molecular type is superficially defined by immunohistochemistry, the molecular subtypes and mechanisms are actually very complicated [2]. TNBC, accounting for approximately 15% of all BCs, is not sensitive to endocrine therapy and molecular-targeted therapy [3]; thus, surgery and systemic chemotherapy are the main treatment methods. The adjuvant therapy treatment regimen always includes anthracycline and/or paclitaxel in (Neo-) early TNBC; however, this treatment is often ineffective after recurrence or metastasis. Thereby, continuously searching for new targeted therapies and immunotherapies has gradually become a focus in the TNBC treatment in addition to developing new uses for old medicines. In recent years, great progress has been made in the treatment of TNBC. Notably, at the 2019 SABCS conference, a Chinese team presented the data on the treatment progress for TNBC that year. This article presents details of the latest progress in therapies for TNBC.

2 Targeted therapy: PARP inhibitors

In recent years, targeted treatment of TNBC has made some progress. BCs associated with germline mutations in BRCA1/2 account for 3–5% of cases. BRCA1/2-associated BC cases have biological features causing genomic instability and potential sensitivity to DNA damaging agents, including poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and platinum agents [4]. A meta-analysis has summarized 34 studies associated with BRCA genes, including 2,97,402 BC patients, and has shown that the prognosis of germline BRCA1/2 mutant BC is poor. Beyond the BRCA1/2 genes, which are responsible for DNA damage repair, another important DNA damage repair pathway involves PARP-mediated repair of DNA single-strand breaks, which can lead to double-strand breaks that cannot be repaired in the process of DNA replication [5]. PARP inhibition can induce further DNA damage. If there is a BRCA1/2 gene mutation and the DNA double-strand damage repair function is lost, inhibition of PARP enzyme function with a PARP inhibitor further hinders the possibility of DNA repair in tumor cells, thus accelerating the death of tumor cells, having a synthetic lethal effect, and implementing precise targeting [6,7]. PARP inhibitors provide further possible therapy options for BRCA mutant BC. To date, three main clinical trials on PARP inhibitors for TNBC have been performed, one of which includes promising results from the OlympiAD study presented at SABCS this year.

OlympiAD was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial evaluating olaparib monotherapy (300 mg tablets twice daily) compared with conventional chemotherapy. A total of 302 patients who had received two or fewer prior therapies in an advanced setting were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to olaparib or chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 14.5 months, progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. The results, first presented at ASCO in 2017, indicated significantly prolonged PFS with olaparib versus standard therapy (7.0 vs 4.2 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43–0.8; P < 0.001); in addition, higher response rates were seen in the olaparib group (59.9% vs 28.8%). Olaparib was the first PARP inhibitor to demonstrate superior efficacy and tolerability than standard chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated advanced BC. According to the results presented earlier, the FDA approved olaparib as the first PARP inhibitor for the treatment of this patient subgroup. Nevertheless, in the interim analysis, no difference in the overall survival (OS) was observed between the two groups [8]. OS values with the prolonged follow-up in the OlympiAD trial were reported at the 2019 SABCS conference. Among the patients who did not receive chemotherapy in an advanced stage, the results for the olaparib group were more significant than those for the chemotherapy group in terms of OS benefits. Unexpectedly, the median OS was 22.6 months in the chemotherapy group and 14.7 months in the control group. More remarkably, the 3-year OS was 40.8% versus 12.8% in the two groups, and no new safety events were observed in the extended follow-up [9]. Accordingly, a substantial proportion of patients with TNBC receiving olaparib therapy can attain long-term survival. Currently, research on PARP inhibitors for adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant therapy, as well as for the prevention of BC is ongoing, including OlympiA (a phase III study) and GeparSixto study, and in the future, the results of these studies will show evaluating adjuvant therapy with olaparib for HER-2-/gBRCAm BC and exploring the value of a PARP inhibitor in neoadjuvant therapy, respectively.

EMBRACA is an open-label phase III trial that randomly assigned 431 patients in a 2:1 ratio to talazoparib at 1 mg daily or a standard single-agent therapy of the physician’s choice (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine); 287 patients received talazoparib, and 144 patients received the standard treatment. All patients had gBRCA mutant, HER-2-negative advanced BC and received no more than three prior lines of chemotherapy in an advanced setting. Median PFS was the primary endpoint. The secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks (the rate of complete, partial, or stable response), and the duration of the response. The median PFS was 3 months longer for talazoparib than for chemotherapy (8.6 vs 5.6 months; HR for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% CI 0.41–0.71; P < 0.001), and the ORR was superior (62.6% vs 27.2%; HR, 4.99; P < 0.0001). An interim analysis of overall survival suggested a positive trend favoring talazoparib although these data are preliminary. Talazoparib, another PARP inhibitor, is a well-tolerated drug. The common adverse events (>10%) include anemia, fatigue, neutropenia, nausea, headache, and thrombocytopenia. Grade 3–4 hematologic adverse events occurred in 55% of patients versus 38% in the chemotherapy group, grade 3 or 4 anemia occurred in 39.2 vs 4.8%, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 14.7 vs 1.6%; however, grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was less frequent with talazoparib (20.9 vs 34.9%). PARP inhibitor drugs are a relatively nontoxic oral therapeutic option with many other advantages over conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. The FDA has approved talazoparib for the treatment of metastatic BC patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 mutations, and a meta-analysis has confirmed that PARP inhibitors significantly delay the deterioration in the quality of life (HR, 0.40; 95% CI 0.29–0.54) [10].

A phase III study, BROCADE, randomized patients with gBRCAm-BC to carboplatin/paclitaxel with or without veliparib as a second-line treatment separately, and the results indicated higher PFS (14.5 vs 12.6 months, HR 0.71; p = 0.002); however, the OS did not differ significantly between groups (33.5 vs 28.2 months). Of note, the most common grade 3 toxicities were anemia (27 vs 17%), neutropenia (52 vs 50%), and thrombocytopenia (25 vs 15%) [11].

3 Immunotherapy

The immune system includes many immune checkpoints in the inhibitory signaling pathway, which are involved in regulating the persistence and the intensity of the immune response, maintaining autoimmune tolerance, and avoiding tissue damage [12,13]. Inhibition of immune checkpoints can reverse the microenvironment immunosuppressive state and enhance the function of tumor cell clearance [14,15]. In recent years, one major immune checkpoint therapy has involved a monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), which is expressed in a variety of tumor cells and immune cells. In tumor cells, PD-L1 binds its receptor PD1 on the surfaces of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and subsequently transmits immunosuppressive signals to TILs; inhibits T cell migration, proliferation, and secretion of cytotoxic mediators; and induces T cell depletion, thus limiting its killing effect on tumor cells. Ultimately, tumor cells successfully escape, whereas blocking the binding of PD1/PD-L1 may reverse this immune escape, enhance tumor immunity, and inhibit tumor progression [16]. In addition, using PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment in clinical trials of patients with many tumors, and TNBC treatment has made some progress. Furthermore, tumors with a high mutational burden have superior responses to checkpoint inhibition, thus potentially explaining why TNBC treatment is the most advanced field, given the higher mutational burden in TNBC than in other BC subtypes [17]. We describe some trials in this article.

Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, has been used as a monotherapy to treat PD-L1-positive metastatic TNBC in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 trial. The results have revealed an overall response rate of 19%, with one complete response, four partial responses, and 26% patients with stable disease [18]. An ORR of 18.5% was achieved in metastatic TNBC patients, with a median OS of 11.2 months. Of total, 15.6% of the subjects enrolled in this trial were treatment naive.

In the phase II trial KEYNOTE-086, patients with metastatic TNBC were categorized according to PD-L1 expression and their history of metastatic treatment [19]. Cohort A included 170 patients with previously treated TNBC, regardless of PD-L1 expression, and the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab were evaluated. An ORR of 4.7% was observed, a value lower than expected, and the PFS was similar in both the PD-L1-positive and negative cohorts (2.7 vs 1.9 months, respectively). Moreover, no significant difference was found in OS (8.3 vs 10 months in the PD-L1-positive and negative cohorts, respectively). Cohort B, including 84 patients who were PD-L1 positive on tumor cells or in the stroma and who had no prior metastatic treatment, experienced a higher ORR of 23.1%, and the median DOR was 8.4 months. The median PFS was 2.1 months, and the median OS was 16.1 months.

A total of 622 patients with advanced TNBC were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to pembrolizumab versus single-agent physician’s choice chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) as a second- or third-line therapy in the phase III KEYNOTE-119 trial. The official results have not been published, but a press release at the May 2019 ESMO announced that pembrolizumab did not meet its primary endpoint of OS [20]. KEYNOTE-522 study is the first prospective, randomized trial that enrolled 1174 patients receiving either neoadjuvant therapy or postoperative adjuvant therapy, assigned to pembrolizumab + chemotherapy group and placebo + chemotherapy group for TNBC in a 2:1 ratio. Pathological complete response and event-free survival were endpoints, and pCR values were notably 64.8 vs 51.2% between two groups in the first interim analysis and in the second interim analysis, and the results showed that the EFS rates were 91.3 and 85.3%, respectively. The results showed that platinum- containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with pembrolizumab could significantly improve the pCR rate compared with chemotherapy 20.

Another immunotherapy study presented at the 2018 ESMO included IMpassion 130, a phase III registration study that randomly recruited 902 patients with metastatic or inoperable locally advanced TNBC, and evaluated nab-paclitaxel plus the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab versus nab-paclitaxel plus placebo in patients as the first-line therapy [22]. Patients were stratified according to PD-L1, which was defined as positive with 91% staining of immune cells. The co-primary endpoints were PFS and OS in the ITT and PD-L1-positive population. The median follow-up was 12.9 months. The PFS was improved by just over 1.5 months in the ITT population with a combination of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (7.2 months vs 5.5 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.92; P = 0.002). However, PD-L1-positive patients showed a 2.5-month improvement with atezolizumab in PFS (7.5 months vs 5.0 months; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.78; P < 0.001). OS in the ITT population was improved by approximately 4 months with atezolizumab, and the median OS was 21.3 versus 17.6 months in the atezolizumab group and placebo group, respectively (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69–1.02; P = 0.08). However, the difference in OS was much greater (10.5 months) in the PD-L1-positive population, and 54% of patients were alive at 2 years. Notably, the median OS was 25.0 versus 15.5 months (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45–0.86). The results of the second interim analysis of IMpassion130, presented at 2019 ESMO, were consistent with those of the first analysis [23]. Nab-paclitaxel plus the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab was further confirmed to achieve clinically significant OS benefits in patients with primary PD-L1-positive metastatic TNBC. Based on the IMpassion130 results, the FDA granted accelerated approval of atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic PD-L1-positive TNBC. Nonetheless, we are also looking forward to the outcomes of IMpassion131, a similar phase III trial designed to study atezolizumab + paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + placebo as a first-line therapy in TNBC to determine the difference of atezolizumab used in first-line versus second-/third-line of treatment.

4 Chemotherapy: new uses of old drugs

Chemotherapy is an accepted treatment for early-stage TNBC, but no specific regimens are used for improving prognosis [24,25]. In recent years, studies have increasingly sought better ways to treat this BC type. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced or inoperable TNBC. Patients with TNBC, as opposed to those with the luminal subtypes, are more likely to achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy [26]. A major advantage of this approach is its ability to predict survival according to the presence or the absence of a pCR at the time of surgery and to tailor adjuvant therapy. However, it can be used to screen patients who are prone to metastasis and recurrence, so that further intensive treatment can be provided for those who do not meet this endpoint. This process is critical, because these patients have a relapse risk 6 to 9 times higher than those of patients achieving pCR [27]. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be optimized, reasonable, sufficient, and standard (six to eight phases) to enable higher pCR and decrease treatment or ladder treatment in postoperative adjuvant therapy. For patients who do not reach pCR, intensive treatment is required, such as capecitabine treatment, which can be used as a second-line intensive treatment regimen.

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug that is enzymatically converted to 5-flfluorouracil in the body. The FDA initially approved this agent (marketed as Xeloda) in 1998 for use in patients with metastatic HER-2-negative BC that had progressed after administration of both anthracycline and taxane [28,29,30,31,32,33]. In recent years, several randomized clinical trials have estimated the clinical value of adding capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for early BC (including TNBC) although the studies have generated conflicting conclusions [34,35,36,37]. Because TNBC has the highest metastasis and recurrence rates and the lowest survival rate among BC subtypes [38], investigating the clinical value of adjuvant addition of capecitabine in early-TNBC patients and determining the targeted subgroup that can benefit most are crucial.

The FinXX exploratory randomized clinical trial examined 1,500 women in Finland and Sweden between January 27, 2004, and May 29, 2007; 747 women received three cycles of docetaxel followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil, and 753 women received three cycles of docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine according to a random allocation [39]. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the median follow-up time was 10.3 years. No significant difference was observed in RFS or OS between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71–1.08; P = 0.23; and HR, 0.84, 95% CI, 0.66–1.07; P = 0.15), yet BC-specific survival tended to favor the capecitabine group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60–1.04; P = 0.10), and a comparison of the subgroups defined by cancer steroid hormone receptor status indicated that the capecitabine group was superior in terms of RFS and OS in the subset of patients with TNBC (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31–0.92; P = 0.02; and HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.31–0.96; P = 0.03). This trial has concluded that patients with TNBC have favorable survival outcomes when treated with the capecitabine containing regimen, but the results must be cautiously interpreted because of the exploratory subgroup analysis design. Nonetheless, concluding that capecitabine has no role in the adjuvant treatment of early BC may be premature, and the ongoing trials may provide more guidance.

In the other open label trial, CREATE-X, reported by the Japanese Breast Cancer Research Group (JBCRG) in 2015, also called JBCRG-04, all 910 eligible patients had HER-2-negative stage I to IIIB BC and had residual disease in the breast or lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The participants were randomized to either capecitabine (n = 455) or no additional chemotherapy (n = 455), to identify whether patients who had residual tumors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with both anthracycline and a taxane, and received sequential adjuvant administration of capecitabine, which would show a survival benefit. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary endpoint, and OS was a secondary endpoint; both were improved in the TNBC cohort with six to eight cycles of the adjuvant capecitabine. After 5 years of follow-up, the DFS was 82.8% in the capecitabine arm versus 74% in the control arm (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.53–0.93; P = 0.005). Moreover, the OS was 89.2% in the capecitabine arm, but 83.9% in the control arm (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40–0.92; P = 0.001). Similarly, the subset of patients with TNBC demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in DFS (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39–0.87). Hand-foot syndrome, the most common adverse reaction to capecitabine, occurred in 73.4% of the patients in the capecitabine group [40]. The results of the CREATE-X trial had prompted most clinicians to treat early-stage TNBC with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to determine who should receive capecitabine.

The GEICAM/2003–11_CIBOMA/2004–01 trial is an open-label, randomized phase III study that explored extended adjuvant capecitabine after completion of standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC [41]. Early-TNBC patients who had prior anthracycline- and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy were randomly allocated to either capecitabine (n = 448) or observation (n = 428). The median length of follow-up was 7.3 years, and the primary endpoint was DFS between groups. The DFS was not significantly prolonged in the capecitabine group versus the observation group (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63–1.06; P = 0.136). Disappointingly, the GEICAM-CIBOMA study did not show a statistically significant improvement in DFS with the addition of capecitabine to standard (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for operable TNBC, as reported at the 2019 SABCS.

The China Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group (CBCSG) combined efforts of 35 study centers and addressed all kinds of difficulties to contribute to the CBCSG010 trial, the largest phase III randomized clinical trial performed in China to date, assigned patients separately to the observation group (three cycles of paclitaxel combined with capecitabine and three sequential cycles of capecitabine combined with epirubicin + cyclophosphamide) and control treatment (three cycles of paclitaxel and three sequential cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil) in the adjuvant treatment phase, and compared the safety and efficacy of two schemes. The median follow-up was approximately 5 years; the DFS was 86.3% in the treatment group versus 80.2% in the control group in TNBC (HR = 0.66); the risk of recurrence was reduced 34%; and the RFS was 89.5 versus 82.9% in the treatment group and the control group, respectively (HR = 0.58). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with T2/T3 tumor stage, positive lymph nodes, level III histological grade, and high levels of Ki-67 show apparent benefits in DFS and OS. On the basis of these results, capecitabine can be combined with a regimen containing anthracycline and paclitaxel in the early adjuvant therapy stage to improve prognosis [42]. Future CBCSG010 research will further explore populations that would benefit by combining the Fudan four classification standard of TNBC [43]. Because all drugs in this research have been approved and are covered by the national medical insurance in China, more patients with TNBC could get longer and better survival benefits. Ultimately, toxicity should be noted.

5 Conclusions: challenges and forecast

Surprising results in 2019 indicated that PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor treatment may open doors for further immunotherapy treatment. In approximately 40% of patients who are PD-L1 positive, atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel can be used as a first-line therapeutic regimen to increase survival benefits. We expect to see more research in this domain, such as using atezolizumab in neo-/adjuvant therapy to improve the prognosis of TNBC and searching for biomarkers. Accordingly, PARP inhibitors are playing an increasing role for patients with gBRCAm, and clinical phase III data demonstrate that these patients could experience the benefit of limiting disease progression Moreover, the outcomes in terms of adverse events and quality of life are superior to those with chemotherapy. Undeniably, the strategy to escalate chemotherapy with capecitabine can prolong a certain survival rates and lower recurrence rates in some early TNBC patients, thus benefiting those patients who cannot afford expensive and currently still unattainable medicine.

Notably, determining the TNBC phase is very important for clinical diagnosis and treatment. If a patient remains in an early stage, then only chemotherapy can achieve a high-quality outcome without additional toxicity. However, additional steps must be taken, such as identifying the status of BRCA and PD-L1 in locally advanced or metastatic TNBC, to determine whether a PARP inhibitor or atezolizumab might be needed.

These authors have contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

We thank International Science Editing (http://www.internationalscienceediting.com) for editing this manuscript.

Funding: This study was funded by the “High-level Hospital Construction Research Project of Maoming People’s Hospital” and the Technology project program of Maoming (No. 190408081701519).
Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Contributions: (I) Conception and design: M. Shen; (II) Administrative support: W. Yang; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: All authors; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: All authors; (V) Manuscript writing: M. Shen; (VI) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

References

[1] Pareja F, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancers – a panoply of cancer types. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(6):347–8. 10.1038/s41571-018-0001-7.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(7):2750–67. 10.1172/JCI45014.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[3] Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48. 10.1056/NEJMra1001389.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Nicolas E, Bertucci F, Sabatier R, Gonçalves A. Targeting BRCA deficiency in breast cancer: what are the clinical evidences and the next perspectives?. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(12):506. 10.3390/cancers10120506, Published 2018 Dec 11.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[5] Zhu Y, Wu J, Zhang C, Sun S, Zhang J, Liu W, et al. BRCA mutations and survival in breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(43):70113–27. 10.18632/oncotarget.12158.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[6] Caldecott KW. Single-strand break repair and genetic disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(8):619–31. 10.1038/nrg2380.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] De Vos M, Schreiber V, Dantzer F. The diverse roles and clinical relevance of PARPs in DNA damage repair: current state of the art. Biochem Pharmacol. 2012;84(2):137–46. 10.1016/j.bcp.2012.03.018.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 26;377(17):1700]. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–33. 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P, Im S-A, Senkus E, Xu B, et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(4):558–66. 10.1093/annonc/mdz012.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Gonçalves A, Lee K-H, et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):753–63. 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Poggio F, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, Conte M, Martel S, Maurer C, et al. Single-agent PARP inhibitors for the treatment of patients with BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ESMO Open. 2018;3(4):e000361. 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000361, Published 2018 Jun 20.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Karn T, Jiang T, Hatzis C, Sänger N, El-Balat A, Rody A, et al. Association between genomic metrics and immune infiltration in triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1707–11. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2140.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Safonov A, Jiang T, Bianchini G, Győrffy B, Karn T, Hatzis C, et al. Immune gene expression is associated with genomic aberrations in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77(12):3317–24. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-3478.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Diéras V, Han HS, Kaufman B, Wildiers H, Friedlander M, Ayoub JP, et al. Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct;21(10):1269–82, Epub 2020 Aug 27. PMID: 32861273 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30447-2.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Rossi G, Carpi A. Tumour growth and immune evasion as targets for a new strategy in advanced cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2018;25(11):R577–604. 10.1530/ERC-18-0142, Published 2018 Nov 1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Ma Y, Shurin GV, Gutkin DW, Shurin MR. Tumor associated regulatory dendritic cells. Semin Cancer Biol. 2012;22(4):298–306. 10.1016/j.semcancer.2012.02.010.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[18] Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge DC, Aparicio SA, Behjati S, Biankin AV, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer [published correction appears in Nature. 2013 Oct 10;502(7470):258. Imielinsk, Marcin [corrected to Imielinski, Marcin]]. Nature. 2013;500(7463):415–21. 10.1038/nature12477.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] Nanda R, Chow LQ, Dees EC, Berger R, Gupta S, Geva R, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer: phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2460–7. 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.8931.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] Adams S, Schmid P, Rugo HS, Winer EP, Loirat D, Awada A, et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(3):397–404. 10.1093/annonc/mdy517.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Cortés J, Lipatov O, Im S-A, Goncalves A, Lee KS, Schmid P, et al. KEYNOTE-119:phase III study of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus single agent chemotherapy (chemo) for metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC). https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(19)60370-4/pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Schmid P, Cortés J, Dent R, Pusztai L, Denkert C, Verma S, et al. Phase III study of pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) vs placebo (pbo) + chemo as neoadjuvant treatment, followed by pembro vs pbo as adjuvant treatment for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Ann Oncol. 2019;30(Suppl5), 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.003. https://www.annalsofoncology.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0923-7534%2820%2937657-2Search in Google Scholar

[23] Schmid P, Rugo HS, Adams S, Schneeweiss A, Barrios CH, Iwata H, et al. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(1):44–59. 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30689-8.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Pan HC, Clarkeet M, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):432–44. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61625-5.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Ali AM, Ansari JAK, El-Aziz NMA, Abozeed WN, Warith AMA, Alsaleh K, et al. Triple negative breast cancer: a tale of two decades. Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2017;17(4):491–9. 10.2174/1871520616666160725112335.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, Schneeweiss A, Barrios CH, Iwata H, et al. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(22):2108–21. 10.1056/NEJMoa1809615.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, André F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] Smorenburg CH, de Groot SM, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Hamaker ME, Wymenga AN, de Graaf H, et al. A randomized phase III study comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of the OMEGA study of the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group BOOG. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(3):599–605. 10.1093/annonc/mdt588.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[29] Yin W, Pei G, Liu G, Huang L, Gao S, Feng X. Efficacy and safety of capecitabine-based first-line chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Oncotarget. 2015;6(36):39365–72. 10.18632/oncotarget.5460.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[30] Saura C, Garcia-Saenz JA, Xu B, Harb W, Moroose M, Pluard T, et al. Safety and efficacy of neratinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(32):3626–33. 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.3809.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Miles D, Zielinski C, Martin M, Vrdoljak E, Robert N. Combining capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: a comprehensive review. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(4):482–91. 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[32] Fornier MN. Approved agents for metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2011;38(Suppl 2):S3–10. 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2011.04.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[33] Stockler MR, Harvey VJ, Francis PA, Byrne MJ, Ackland SP, Fitzharris B, et al. Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(34):4498–504. 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9101.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[34] Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, Kearney T, Higgins SA, Weidhaas J, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5652–7. 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5664.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[35] von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. 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. 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Kokko R, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide for early breast cancer: the randomized clinical FinXX trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(6):793–800. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6120.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[37] Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Kokko R, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin for early breast cancer: final analysis of the randomized FinXX trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(1):11–8. 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.4639.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[38] Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Huovinen R, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Tanner M, Kokko R, et al. Outcome of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with or without adjuvant trastuzumab in the Finland Capecitabine Trial (FinXX). Acta Oncol. 2014;53(2):186–94. 10.3109/0284186X.2013.820840.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[39] O’Shaughnessy J, Koeppen H, Xiao Y, Lackner MR, Paul D, Stokoe C, et al. Patients with slowly proliferative early breast cancer have low five-year recurrence rates in a phase III adjuvant trial of capecitabine. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(19):4305–11. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0636.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Zujewski JA, Rubinstein L. CREATE-X a role for capecitabine in early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of available data. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:27. 10.1038/s41523-017-0029-3, Published 2017 Jul 20.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[41] Martín M, Barrios CH, Torrecillas L, Ruiz-Borrego M, Bines J, Segalla J, et al. 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 [abstract]. Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8. vol. 79, no. 4 Suppl, San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res; 2019. Abstract nr GS2-04 https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/79/4_Supplement/GS2-04.10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS18-GS2-04Search in Google Scholar

[42] Li J, Yu K, Pang D, Wang C, Jiang J, Yang S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide plus epirubicin for triple-negative breast cancer (CBCSG010): an open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(16):1774–84. 10.1200/JCO.19.02474.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[43] Jiang YZ, Ma D, Suo C, Shi J, Xue M, Hu X, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic landscape of triple-negative breast cancers: subtypes and treatment strategies. Cancer Cell. 2019;35(3):428–440.e5. 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.02.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2020-04-06

Revised: 2020-09-19

Accepted: 2020-10-08

Published Online: 2020-11-14

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2020-0138

Keywords for this article

triple-negative breast cancer; PARP inhibition; immunotherapy; adjuvant therapy

Creative Commons

BY 4.0