Review

Current and future trends in neoadjuvant immunotherapy for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer

*Author for correspondence:

Department of Oncology, Oxford Cancer Center, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Churchill Hospital, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK

Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, OX3 7ER, Oxford, UK

Post Graduation Program in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nine of July University, 015250-000, São Paulo, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Kátia Roque Perez

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3267-7107

Post Graduation Program in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nine of July University, 015250-000, São Paulo, Brazil

Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru

Search for more papers by this author

Thais Pérez Vazquez

São Paulo Cancer Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 01246-000, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:10 Jan 2024https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2022-0277

View article

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) comprises 15–20% of all breast cancers (BC). Lacking targeted therapy options, TNBC becomes the focal point of clinical investigations aiming not only to identify drugs with enhanced response potential but also to uncover new immunological and/or metabolic pathways conducive to more effective treatments. Currently, neoadjuvant treatment for TNBC relies on standard chemotherapy in conjunction with immunotherapy, given the improved response observed with this drug combination. This review delves into the latest therapeutic updates in TNBC treatment and explores potential advancements shaping the future landscape of this disease in the neoadjuvant setting.

Keywords:

References

1. Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA, Tan AR. Triple-negative breast cancer: molecular subtypes and new targets for therapy. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2015, e31–9 (2015).
Google Scholar
2. Allison KH, Elizabeth M, Hammond H et al. Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer: ASCO/CAP guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J. Clin. Invest. 121(7), 2750–2767 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Burstein MD, Tsimelzon A, Poage GM et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies novel subtypes and targets of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21(7), 1688–1698 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Bou Zerdan M, Ghorayeb T, Saliba F et al. Triple negative breast cancer: updates on classification and treatment in 2021. Cancers (Basel). 14(5), 1253 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Dieci MV, Miglietta F, Guarneri V. Immune infiltrates in breast cancer: recent updates and clinical implications. Cells. 10(2), 223 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Lehmann BD, Jovanović B, Chen X et al. Refinement of triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes: implications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy selection. PLOS ONE 11(6), (2016).
Google Scholar
8. Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA. Clinical implications of molecular heterogeneity in triple negative breast cancer. Breast. Suppl. 2(2), 36–40 (2016).
Google Scholar
9. Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S et al. International TILs Working Group 2014. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol. 26(2), 259–271 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Garufi G, Carbognin L, Schettini F et al. Updated neoadjuvant treatment landscape for early triple negative breast cancer: immunotherapy, potential predictive biomarkers, and novel agents. Cancers. 14(17), 4064 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Anders CK, Abramson V, Tan T, Dent R. The evolution of triple-negative breast cancer: from biology to novel therapeutics. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book. 35, 34–42 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S et al. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials: ECOG 2197 and ECOG 1199. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(27), 2959–2966 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Yu X, Zhang Z, Wang Z et al. Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 18(5), 497–506 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Stanton SE, Disis ML. Clinical significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer. J. Immunother. Cancer. 4, 59 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Marra A, Viale G, Curigliano G. Recent advances in triple negative breast cancer: the immunotherapy era. BMC Med. 17(1), 90 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Graeser M, Feuerhake F, Gluz O et al. Immune cell composition and functional marker dynamics from multiplexed immunohistochemistry to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the WSG-ADAPT-TN trial. J. Immunother. Cancer. 9(5), (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L et al. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 382(9), 810–821 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Gianni L, Huang CS, Egle D et al. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant treatment with or without atezolizumab in triple-negative, early high-risk and locally advanced breast cancer: NeoTRIP Michelangelo randomized study. Ann. Oncol. 33(5), 534–543 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Loibl S, Schneeweiss A, Huober J et al. Neoadjuvant durvalumab improves survival in early triple-negative breast cancer independent of pathological complete response. Ann. Oncol. 33(11), 1149–1158 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Ren S, Chen J, Xu X et al. CameL-sq Study Group. Camrelizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC (CameL-Sq): a phase 3 trial. J Thorac Oncol. 17(4), 544–557 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Dziadkowiec KN, Gasiorowska E, Nowak-Markwitz E, Jankowska A. PARP inhibitors: review of mechanisms of action and BRCA1/2 mutation targeting. Prz Menopauzalny. 15(4), 215–219 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Amé JC, Spenlehauer C, de Murcia G. The PARP superfamily. Bioessays. 26(8), 882–893 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 317(23), 2402–2416 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Cortesi L, Rugo HS, Jackisch C. An overview of PARP inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer. Target Oncol. 16(3), 255–282 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(6), 523–533 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(8), 753–763 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B et al. OlympiA Clinical Trial Steering Committee and Investigators. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 384(25), 2394–2405 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Vinayak S, Tolaney SM, Schwartzberg L et al. Open-label clinical trial of niraparib combined with pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 5(8), 1132–1140 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Domchek SM, Postel-Vinay S, Im SA et al. Olaparib and durvalumab in patients with germline BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer (MEDIOLA): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2, basket study. Lancet Oncol. 21(9), 1155–1164 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Geurts V, Kok M. Immunotherapy for metastatic triple negative breast cancer: current paradigm and future approaches. Curr. Treat Options Oncol. 24(6), 628–643 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Rugo HS, Tolaney SM, Loirat D et al. Safety analyses from the phase 3 ASCENT trial of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 8(1), 98 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Andrews LP, Marciscano AE, Drake CG, Vignali DA. LAG3 (CD223) as a cancer immunotherapy target. Immunol Rev. 276(1), 80–96 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Howard FM, Pearson AT, Nanda R. Clinical trials of immunotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 195(1), 1–15 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Koboldt DC, Fulton RS, McLellan MD et al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature. 490(7418), 61–70 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Liu H, Murphy CJ, Karreth FA et al. Identifying and targeting sporadic oncogenic genetic aberrations in mouse models of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 8(3), 354–369 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Kim SB, Maslyar DJ, Dent R et al. Ipatasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (LOTUS): a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18(10), 1360–1372 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Dent R, Oliveira M, Isakoff SJ et al. Final results of the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase 2 LOTUS trial of first-line ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for inoperable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 189(2), 377–386 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Oliveira M, Saura C, Nuciforo P et al. FAIRLANE, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for early triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 30(8), 1289–1297 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Balko JM, Giltnane JM, Wang K et al. Molecular profiling of the residual disease of triple-negative breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies actionable therapeutic targets. Cancer Discov. 4(2), 232–245 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Mrklić I, Pogorelić Z, Ćapkun V, Tomić SŽ. Expression of androgen receptors in triple negative breast carcinomas. Acta Histochem. 115(4), 344–348 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Astvatsaturyan K, Yue Y, Walts AE, Bose S. Androgen receptor positive triple negative breast cancer: clinicopathologic, prognostic, and predictive features. PLoS One. 13(6), e0197827 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Gerratana L, Basile D, Buono G et al. Androgen receptor in triple negative breast cancer: a potential target for the targetless subtype. Cancer Treat Rev. 68, 102–110 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Kim S, Moon BI, Lim W et al. Feasibility of classification of triple negative breast cancer by immunohistochemical surrogate markers. Clin. Breast Cancer. 18(5), 1123–1132 (2018).
Google Scholar
44. Wang C, Pan B, Zhu H et al. Prognostic value of androgen receptor in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 7(29), 46482–46491 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. Vtorushin S, Dulesova A, Krakhmal N. Luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype of triple-negative breast cancer: molecular, morphological, and clinical features. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 23(8), 617–624 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Gucalp A, Tolaney S, Isakoff SJ et al. Phase II trial of bicalutamide in patients with androgen receptor-positive, estrogen receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 19(19), 5505–5512 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Traina TA, Miller K, Yardley DA et al. Enzalutamide for the treatment of androgen receptor-expressing triple-negative breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(9), 884–890 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Sinkala M, Nkhoma P, Mulder N, Martin DP. Integrated molecular characterization of the MAPK pathways in human cancers reveals pharmacologically vulnerable mutations and gene dependencies. Commun Biol. 4(1), 9 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Bianchini G, de Angelis C, Licata L, Gianni L. Treatment landscape of triple-negative breast cancer – expanded options, evolving needs. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 19(2), 91–113 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Koboldt DC, Fulton RS, McLellan MD et al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature. 490(7418), 61–70 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Overman MJ, McDermott R, Leach JL et al. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 18(9), 1182–1191 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Ren XY, Song Y, Wang J et al. Mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability in triple-negative breast cancer: a retrospective study of 440 patients. Front. Oncol. 11, 570623 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. Luchini C, Bibeau F, Ligtenberg MJL et al. ESMO recommendations on microsatellite instability testing for immunotherapy in cancer, and its relationship with PD-1/PD-L1 expression and tumor mutational burden: a systematic review-based approach. Ann. Oncol. 30(8), 1232–1243 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Imai K, Yamamoto H. Carcinogenesis and microsatellite instability: the interrelationship between genetics and epigenetics. Carcinogenesis. 29(4), 673–680 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(26), 2509–2520 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science. 357(6349), 409–413 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Cortes-Ciriano I, Lee S, Park WY et al. A molecular portrait of microsatellite instability across multiple cancers. Nat. Commun. 8, 15180 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Goodman AM, Kato S, Bazhenova L et al. Tumor mutational burden as an independent predictor of response to immunotherapy in diverse cancers. Mol. Cancer Ther. 16(11), 2598–2608 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A et al. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science. 348(6230), 124–128 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu TE, Pluzanski A et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(22), 2093–2104 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Samstein RM, Lee CH, Shoushtari AN et al. Tumor mutational load predicts survival after immunotherapy across multiple cancer types. Nat. Genet. 51(2), 202–206 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Thomas A, Routh ED, Pullikuth A et al. Tumor mutational burden is a determinant of immune-mediated survival in breast cancer. Oncoimmunology. 7(10), e1490854 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Karn T, Denkert C, Weber KE et al. Tumor mutational burden and immune infiltration as independent predictors of response to neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in early TNBC in GeparNuevo. Ann. Oncol. 31(9), 1216–1222 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Hendrickx W, Simeone I, Anjum S et al. Identification of genetic determinants of breast cancer immune phenotypes by integrative genome-scale analysis. Oncoimmunology. 6(2), e125365 (2017).
Google Scholar
65. Karn T, Denkert C, Weber KE et al. 127O Tumor mutational burden and immune infiltration as independent predictors of response to neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in early TNBC in GeparNuevo. Ann. Oncol. 31(9), 1216–1222 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
66. Loi S, Dushyanthen S, Beavis PA et al. RAS/MAPK activation is associated with reduced tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic cooperation between MEK and PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. Clin. Cancer Res. 22(6), 1499–1509 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
67. Criscitiello C, Vingiani A, Maisonneuve P et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 183(2), 347–354 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
68. Criscitiello C, Bayar MA, Curigliano G et al. A gene signature to predict high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and outcome in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 29(1), 162–169 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
69. Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 396(10265), 1817–1828 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
70. Emens LA, Adams S, Barrios CH et al. First-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: IMpassion130 final overall survival analysis. Ann. Oncol. 32(8), 983–993 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
71. Li Y, Zhang H, Merkher Y et al. Recent advances in therapeutic strategies for triple-negative breast cancer. J. Hematol. Oncol. 15(1), 121 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 4

Metrics

Downloaded 131 times

History

Received 1 January 2023

Accepted 30 November 2023

Published online 10 January 2024

Published in print March 2024

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally to this manuscript.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Competing interests disclosure

The authors have no competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options and expert testimony.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare have no conflicts of interest in the manuscript.

PDF download