==== Front Open Med (Wars) Open Med (Wars) med Open Medicine 2391-5463 De Gruyter med-2020-0138 10.1515/med-2020-0138 Review Article A review of current progress in triple-negative breast cancer therapy Shen Meiying 118824384689@163.com Pan Huawen 1 Chen Yuxia Xu Yu Hang Yang Weixiong Wu Zhaojun Department of Mammary Gland, Maoming People’s Hospital, Maoming, 525000, China Department of Spinal, Maoming People’s Hospital, Maoming, 525000, China Department of Ultrasound, Maoming People’s Hospital, Maoming, 525000, China 1 These authors have contributed equally to this work. 14 11 2020 2020 15 1 1143 1149 06 4 2020 19 9 2020 08 10 2020 © 2020 Meiying Shen et al., published by De Gruyter2020Meiying Shen et al., published by De GruyterThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.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 cancerPARP inhibitionimmunotherapyadjuvant therapy ==== Body 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. 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. ==== Refs 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 .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 29555966 [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 .Lehmann BD Bauer JA Chen X Sanders ME Chakravarthy AB Shyr Y 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 21633166 [3] Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48. 10.1056/NEJMra1001389 .Foulkes WD Smith IE Reis-Filho JS Triple-negative breast cancer N Engl J Med 2010 363 20 1938 48 10.1056/NEJMra1001389 21067385 [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.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 [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 .Zhu Y Wu J Zhang C Sun S Zhang J Liu W BRCA mutations and survival in breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Oncotarget 2016 7 43 70113 27 10.18632/oncotarget.12158 27659521 [6] Caldecott KW. Single-strand break repair and genetic disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(8):619–31. 10.1038/nrg2380 .Caldecott KW Single-strand break repair and genetic disease Nat Rev Genet 2008 9 8 619 31 10.1038/nrg2380 18626472 [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 .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 22469522 [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 .Robson M Im SA Senkus E Xu B Domchek SM Masuda N 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 28578601 [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 .Robson ME Tung N Conte P Im S-A Senkus E Xu B 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 30689707 [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 .Litton JK Rugo HS Ettl J Hurvitz SA Gonçalves A Lee K-H Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation N Engl J Med 2018 379 8 753 63 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905 30110579 [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.Poggio F Bruzzone M Ceppi M Conte M Martel S Maurer C 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 29942664 [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 .Karn T Jiang T Hatzis C Sänger N El-Balat A Rody A Association between genomic metrics and immune infiltration in triple-negative breast cancer JAMA Oncol 2017 3 12 1707 11 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2140 28750120 [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 .Safonov A Jiang T Bianchini G Győrffy B Karn T Hatzis C 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 28428277 [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. Diéras V Han HS Kaufman B Wildiers H Friedlander M Ayoub JP 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. 32861273 [15] Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 .Hanahan D Weinberg RA Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation Cell 2011 144 5 646 74 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 21376230 [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.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 30306784 [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 .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 22414911 [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 .Alexandrov LB Nik-Zainal S Wedge DC Aparicio SA Behjati S Biankin AV 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 23945592 [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 .Nanda R Chow LQ Dees EC Berger R Gupta S Geva R 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 27138582 [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 .Adams S Schmid P Rugo HS Winer EP Loirat D Awada A 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 30475950 [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.Cortés J Lipatov O Im S-A Goncalves A Lee KS Schmid P 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 [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%2937657-2Schmid P Cortés J Dent R Pusztai L Denkert C Verma S 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%2937657-2 [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 .Schmid P Rugo HS Adams S Schneeweiss A Barrios CH Iwata H 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 31786121 [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 .Peto R Davies C Godwin J Gray R Pan HC Clarkeet M 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 22152853 [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 .Ali AM Ansari JAK El-Aziz NMA Abozeed WN Warith AMA Alsaleh K Triple negative breast cancer: a tale of two decades Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2017 17 4 491 9 10.2174/1871520616666160725112335 27456662 [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 .Schmid P Adams S Rugo HS Schneeweiss A Barrios CH Iwata H Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer N Engl J Med 2018 379 22 2108 21 10.1056/NEJMoa1809615 30345906 [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 .Liedtke C Mazouni C Hess KR André F Tordai A Mejia JA 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 18250347 [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 .Smorenburg CH de Groot SM van Leeuwen-Stok AE Hamaker ME Wymenga AN de Graaf H 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 24504445 [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 .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 26420815 [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 .Saura C Garcia-Saenz JA Xu B Harb W Moroose M Pluard T 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 25287822 [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 .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 22257791 [32] Fornier MN. Approved agents for metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2011;38(Suppl 2):S3–10. 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2011.04.003 .Fornier MN Approved agents for metastatic breast cancer Semin Oncol 2011 38 Suppl 2 S3 10 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2011.04.003 [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 .Stockler MR Harvey VJ Francis PA Byrne MJ Ackland SP Fitzharris B 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 22025143 [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 .Haffty BG Yang Q Reiss M Kearney T Higgins SA Weidhaas J 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 17116942 [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 .von Minckwitz G Untch M Blohmer JU Costa SD Eidtmann H Fasching PA 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 22508812 [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 .Joensuu H Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL Huovinen R Jukkola-Vuorinen A Tanner M Kokko R 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 28253390 [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 .Joensuu H Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL Huovinen R Jukkola-Vuorinen A Tanner M Kokko R 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 22105826 [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 .Joensuu H Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL Huovinen R Jukkola-Vuorinen A Tanner M Kokko R 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 23957715 [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 .O’Shaughnessy J Koeppen H Xiao Y Lackner MR Paul D Stokoe C 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 26041745 [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.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 28758147 [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.Martín M Barrios CH Torrecillas L Ruiz-Borrego M Bines J Segalla J 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 [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 .Li J Yu K Pang D Wang C Jiang J Yang S 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 32275467 [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 .Jiang YZ Ma D Suo C Shi J Xue M Hu X 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 30853353