Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimizing Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Abstract

The mainstay of treatment for early-stage and locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is chemotherapy. Anthracycline−/alkylator- and taxane-based regimens are considered the standard of care for the systemic treatment of high-risk triple-negative disease. Common approaches include sequential anthracycline/alkylator followed by taxane or concurrent delivery of an anthracycline, an alkylator, and a taxane. Shorter courses of treatment are considered appropriate for lower-risk triple-negative, node-negative tumors less than 1 cm. Despite treatment with anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens, about 30% of early-stage TNBC develop recurrent and metastatic disease, and many efforts are focused on how to optimize our current neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches. Incorporation of platinum agents in the neoadjuvant setting appears promising, but long-term outcome data are needed. Treatment of high residual disease burden with additional chemotherapy after completion of neoadjuvant therapy is becoming an important area of investigation. The hope is that newer biologically driven strategies and development of biomarkers will lead to more effective and individualized therapy for TNBC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Millikan RC, Newman B, Tse CK, et al. Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109:123–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:2329–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G, Clarke M, Coates AS, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen-receptor-poor breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2008;371:29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, et al. Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA. 2006;295:1658–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Mougalian S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer increases the rate of breast conservation: results from the national cancer database. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:1063–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones RL, Salter J, A’Hern R, et al. The prognostic significance of Ki67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:53–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guarneri V, Piacentini F, Ficarra G, et al. A prognostic model based on nodal status and Ki-67 predicts the risk of recurrence and death in breast cancer patients with residual disease after preoperative chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1193–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Denduluri N, Somerfield MR, Eisen A, et al. Selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and adjuvant targeted therapy for HER2-positive breast cancers: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation of the cancer care Ontario clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2416–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer (Version 2.2017-April 6, 2017). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2017.

  14. Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2053–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S, et al. Long-term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2353–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, et al. HER2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1496–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin M, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, et al. Molecular predictors of efficacy of adjuvant weekly paclitaxel in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123:149–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2302–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC, et al. Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1168–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin M, Segui MA, Anton A, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2200–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the NSABP B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3197–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HC, et al. SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:58–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bell R, Brown J, Parmar M, et al. Final efficacy and updated safety results of the randomized phase III BEATRICE trial evaluating adjuvant bevacizumab-containing therapy in triple-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:754–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin M, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, et al. Randomized phase 3 trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:805–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ho AY, Gupta G, King TA, et al. Favorable prognosis in patients with T1a/T1bN0 triple-negative breast cancers treated with multimodality therapy. Cancer. 2012;118:4944–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA, et al. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5381–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheang MC, Voduc KD, Tu D, et al. Responsiveness of intrinsic subtypes to adjuvant anthracycline substitution in the NCIC.CTG MA.5 randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2402–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Colleoni M, Cole BF, Viale G, et al. Classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy is more effective in triple-negative, node-negative breast cancer: results from two randomized trials of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2966–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Harbeck N, Gluz O, Clemens MR, et al. Prospective WSG phase III PlanB trial: Final analysis of adjuvant 4 x EC→4 x docetaxel vs. 6 x docetaxel/cyclophosphamide in patients with high clinical risk and intermediate-to-high genomic risk HER2-negative, early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 35 suppl (abstract 504), 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, et al. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: the ABC trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG oncology). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2647–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, et al. How basal are triple-negative breast cancers? Int J Cancer. 2008;123:236–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Matros E, Wang ZC, Lodeiro G, et al. BRCA1 promoter methylation in sporadic breast tumors: relationship to gene expression profiles. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;91:179–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Hallmarks of ‘BRCAness’ in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:814–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tutt A, Robson M, Garber JE, et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2010;376:235–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147:401–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Silver DP, Richardson AL, Eklund AC, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1145–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ryan PD, Tung NM, Isakoff SJ, et al. Neoadjuvant cisplatin and bevacizumab in triple-negative breast cancer: Safety and efficacy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27 suppl (abstract 551).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Prowell TM, Pazdur R. Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2438–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharma P, Lopez-Tarruella S, Garcia-Saenz JA, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant carboplatin plus docetaxel in triple-negative breast cancer: combined analysis of two cohorts. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:649–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2147–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Midgley R, Kerr DJ. Capecitabine: have we got the dose right? Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2009;6:17–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Sonya Reid-Lawrence MBBS & Ingrid A. Mayer MD, MSCI

  2. Department of Solid Tumor Oncology and Investigational Therapeutics, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Antoinette R. Tan MD, MHSc, FACP

Authors
  1. Sonya Reid-Lawrence MBBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antoinette R. Tan MD, MHSc, FACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingrid A. Mayer MD, MSCI
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid A. Mayer MD, MSCI .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Solid Tumor Oncology and Investigational Therapeutics, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

    Antoinette R. Tan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reid-Lawrence, S., Tan, A.R., Mayer, I.A. (2018). Optimizing Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. In: Tan, A. (eds) Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69980-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69980-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69979-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69980-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation