Real-world survival outcomes of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in operable triple-negative breast cancer: a propensity score matched registry-based study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43990Keywords:
Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Adjuvant Chemotherapy, Treatment OutcomeAbstract
Background and purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype where the prognostic implications of primary systemic therapy followed by surgery, compared to up-front surgery and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), are yet to be outlined. This retrospective registry-based study aimed to compare survival outcomes between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus ACT for operable TNBC in a real-world setting.
Patient/material and methods: We included all patients treated with chemotherapy for operable TNBC in Sweden between 2008 and 2019 using the Swedish national research database BCBaSe 3.0. To reduce confounding by indication, we implemented propensity score matching (PSM) and main study outcomes were defined as distant disease-free survival (DDFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).
Results: A total of 4,704 patients were included in the study, of which 1,183 received NACT. Following 1:1 PSM, 837 patients in each treatment setting were available for analyses. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of DDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 – 1.50), BCSS (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 – 1.45) or OS (aHR 1.07; 95% CI 0.82 – 1.39) between patients treated with NACT versus ACT. However, subgroup analysis of patients with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) demonstrated a significant DDFS benefit of NACT (aHR 0.65; 95% CI 0.47 – 0.90).
Interpretation: Overall, we found comparable survival among patients with TNBC treated with NACT or ACT. Considering the anticipated survival improvements when response-guided post-neoadjuvant strategies are implemented in clinical practice, our findings may support the use of NACT in operable TNBC.
Downloads
References
Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1001389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1001389
oibl S, André F, Bachelot T, Barrios CH, Bergh J, Burstein HJ, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, reatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2024;35(2):159–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.016
Korde LA, Somerfield MR, Carey LA, Crews JR, Denduluri N, Hwang ES, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and argeted therapy for breast cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(13):1485–505.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03399 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03399
Korde LA, Somerfield MR, Hershman DL, for the Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Endocrine Therapy, and Targeted Therapy for Breast Cancer Guideline Expert Panel. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in the treatment of high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: ASCO guideline rapid recommendation update. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(15):1696–8.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00503 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00503
Riedel F, Hoffmann AS, Moderow M, Heublein S, Deutsch TM, Golatta M, et al. Time trends of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast ancer. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(11):3049–58.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33122
Rogers C, Cobb AN, Lloren JIC, Chaudhary LN, Johnson MK, Huang CC, et al. National trends in neoadjuvant chemotherapy utilization n patients with early-stage node-negative triple-negative breast cancer: the impact of the CREATE-X trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2024;203(2):317–28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07114-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07114-8
Golshan M, Loibl S, Wong SM, Houber JB, O’Shaughnessy J, Rugo HS, et al. Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for riple-negative breast cancer: surgical results from the BrighTNess randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(3):e195410.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5410
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
pring LM, Fell G, Arfe A, Sharma C, Greenup R, Reynolds KL, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and survival: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(12):2838–48.
https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3492 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3492
Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, Im YH, Lee ES, Yokota I, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147–59.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1612645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1612645
Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B, Viale G, Fumagalli D, Rastogi P, et al. Adjuvant Olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(25):2394–405.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2105215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2105215
Asselain B, Barlow W, Bartlett J, Bergh J, Bergsten-Nordström E, Bliss J, et al. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant hemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30777-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30777-5
Castelo-Branco L, Pellat A, Martins-Branco D, Valachis A, Derksen JWG, Suijkerbuijk KPM, et al. ESMO Guidance for Reporting Oncology real-World evidence (GROW). Ann Oncol. 2023;34(12):1097–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.001
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor eceptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):3997–4013.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):e48–72.
https://doi.org/10.5858/134.7.e48 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5858/134.7.e48
Massa D, Vernieri C, Nicolè L, Criscitiello C, Boissière-Michot F, Guiu S, et al. Immune and gene-expression profiling in estrogen eceptor low and negative early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024;116(12):1914–27.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae178
Paakkola NM, Karakatsanis A, Mauri D, Foukakis T, Valachis A. The prognostic and predictive impact of low estrogen receptor expression n early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ESMO Open. 2021;6(6):100289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100289 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100289
Gourgou-Bourgade S, Cameron D, Poortmans P, Asselain B, Azria D, Cardoso F, et al. Guidelines for time-to-event end point definitions n breast cancer trials: results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials). Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):873–9.
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv106
Xia LY, Hu QL, Zhang J, Xu WY, Li XS. Survival outcomes of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 36,480 cases. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):129.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01907-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01907-7
Kennedy CR, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2010;163(1):52–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.015
oibl S, O’Shaughnessy J, Untch M, Sikov WM, Rugo HS, McKee MD, et al. Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or arboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial. ancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):497–509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30111-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30111-6
chmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, Pusztai L, McArthur H, Kümmel S, et al. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):556–67.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2112651 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
Patel SP, Othus M, Chen Y, Wright GP, Yost KJ, Hyngstrom JR,
et al. Neoadjuvant–adjuvant or adjuvant-only pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(9):813–23.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2211437 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2211437
Blank CU, Lucas MW, Scolyer RA, Van De Wiel BA, Menzies AM, Lopez-Yurda M, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab and ipilimumab in esectable stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(18):1696–708.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2402604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2402604
Hatzipanagiotou ME, Pigerl M, Gerken M, Räpple S, Zeltner V, Hetterich M, et al. Does timing of neoadjuvant chemotherapy influence he prognosis in patients with early triple negative breast cancer?. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(13):11941–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05060-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05060-y
Heeg E, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Van Maaren MC, Schreuder K, Tollenaar RAEM, Siesling S, et al. Association between initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy beyond 30 days after surgery and overall survival among patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(1):152–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32788
Barrio AV, Montagna G, Mamtani A, Sevilimedu V, Edelweiss M, Capko D, et al. Nodal recurrence in patients with node-positive breast ancer treated with sentinel node biopsy alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy – a rare event. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(12):1851–5.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4394 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4394
Martelli G, Barretta F, Miceli R, Folli S, Maugeri I, Listorti C, et al. Sentinel node biopsy alone or with axillary dissection in breast cancer patients after primary chemotherapy: long-term results of a prospective interventional study. Ann Surg. 2022;276(5):e544–52.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004562 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004562
imons JM, Van Nijnatten TJA, Van Der Pol CC, Luiten EJT, Koppert LB, Smidt ML. Diagnostic accuracy of different surgical procedures for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in node-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2019;269(3):432–42.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003075 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003075
Barron AU, Hoskin TL, Day CN, Hwang ES, Kuerer HM, Boughey JC. Association of low nodal positivity rate among patients with ERBB2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer and breast pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(12):1120–6.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2696
De Boniface J, Szulkin R, Johansson ALV. Major surgical postoperative complications and survival in breast cancer: Swedish population-based register study in 57 152 women. Br J Surg. 2022;109(10):977–83.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac275 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac275
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ali Inan El-Naggar, Andreas Karakatsanis, Antonios Valachis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
