Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy of different neoadjuvant treatment regimens in BRCA-mutated triple negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice volume 20, Article number: 34 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer strongly associated with BRCA mutation. Standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains the standard of care for early stage TNBC, the optimal chemotherapy regimen is still a matter of discussion. Other agents, such as poly-ADP-ribosyl polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibodies were evaluated in the neoadjuvant setting. This systematic review and meta-analysis intend to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant treatments in pCR rates in TNBC gBRCA mutation, beyond traditional standard chemotherapy.

Methods

PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase and key oncological meetings for trials were searched for studies reporting neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy in BRCA positive TNBC.

Results

Out of 1238 records reviewed, thirty-one trials were included, resulting in a total 619 BRCA-mutated TNBC patients. In BRCA mutated TNBC patients who received cisplatin in monotherapy the proportion of patients who achieved pCR was 0.53 (95%CI [0.30, 0.76]), and when treatment combined standard chemotherapy and platin derivatives the proportion of pCR increased to 0.62 (95% CI [0.48, 0.76]). The group of patients treated with platin derivatives, anthracyclines ± taxanes achieved the highest proportion of pCR, 0.66. Patients treated with PARPi alone show a pCR proportion of 0.55 (95% CI [0.30, 0.81]); and when standard chemotherapy and platin derivatives were combined with PARPi the proportion of pCR did not vary.

Conclusions

Patients with BRCA mutated TNBC treated with cisplatin in monotherapy demonstrate inferior proportion in the pCR achievement when compared with standard chemotherapy plus platin derivates. The best pCR was achieved with platin derivates in association with anthracyclines ± taxanes. No difference in pCR was found between PARPi alone vs PARPi with standard chemotherapy.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for approximately 15% of all breast cancers and represents a great clinical challenge in the clinic, since it is associated with a larger rate of recurrence and a poorer survival [1]. TNBC is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and no amplification of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) gene [2].In contrast with other subtypes, systemic treatments for early TNBC have been restricted to traditional chemotherapy regimens for decades.

For patients with early stage TNBC, the use of NACT has become a standard approach [3], despite its impact on the long-term outcomes being controversial [4]. The main aims of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are to reduce the extent of surgery, to attain the good prognostic impact of pathologic complete response (pCR) and to guide adjuvant therapy according to the response. Approximately 30–40% of all TNBC patients achieve a pCR after standard neoadjuvant regimens including anthracycline, taxane and cyclophosphamide [2, 5]. TNBC patients who achieve pCR after NACT have shown a significantly reduced risk of relapse and death, compared with patients with residual disease – consequently, it is widely accepted that achieving pCR has a strong favorable prognostic value [6]. Moreover, pCR is associated with lower rates of systemic and local recurrence, as well as a predictor of excellent survival regardless of tumor subtype [6, 7]. Hence, optimization of NACT regimens with the aim of increasing pCR rates has been considered a promising approach for improving prognosis in TNBC.

Approximately 75% of breast cancers containing germline mutations in BRCA genes (gBRCA) show a triple negative phenotype, with BRCA1 dysfunction frequently being one of the main drivers [8]. Among all of patients with TNBC, 10–15% of patients have gBRCA mutations [9]. Breast cancers with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and biallelic inactivation show evidence of deficiency in homologous recombination repair [10, 11].

The loss of BRCA function may turn these tumors particularly sensitive to DNA damaging agents, including platinum agents and poly [ADP- ribose] polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). In patients with gBRCA mutations, PARPi have proved to be an effective treatment option in the metastatic setting [12,13,14] and are currently they are being explored in the early setting of the disease [15]. Platinum agents (i.e. carboplatin and cisplatin) are cytotoxic DNA damaging compounds leading to DNA strand breaks; this mechanism of action is especially active in cancer cells with DNA repair deficiency such as those harboring deleterious mutations in BRCA genes. In TNBC patients, platinum-based NACT is associated with significantly increased pCR rate [16]. These agents have shown activity in cancers with gBRCA mutation, as BRCA 1/2 proteins have an essential role at repairing the DNA damage [17, 18]. However, the efforts to select a clinically or biologically defined subgroup of patients, who will benefit from the addition of carboplatin, have to date not been conclusive [19]. Several trials demonstrated the effectiveness in the preoperative setting of platinum-based chemotherapy for TNBC patients with gBRCA mutations [18]; although, two randomized clinical studies showed that the addition of platinum to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased pCR rate in TNBC regardless of the presence of BRCA mutation [16]. Nevertheless, BRCA status is considered a predictive factor of response to chemotherapy leading to higher pCR rates and better disease-free survival in the neoadjuvant setting [20,21,22].

Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the main isoforms of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), resulting in the inhibition of angiogenesis, cell tumor growth, and cell survival. Bevacizumab use has been investigated in both advanced and early-stage breast cancer treatments, showing an increased response rate, mainly in TNBC patients [23]. The treatment of gBRCA mutated breast cancer patients through the use of directed agents for that patient subset is an active area of research.

Since only one third of patients responds to chemotherapy, the identification of novel molecular drivers is crucial for the development of effective targeted treatments. Recently, several clinical trials researching beyond conventional cytotoxic agents showed promising results [24].

To improve the outcome of patients with gBRCA mutated TNBC, several approaches for increasing the efficacy of NACT have been pursued. This systematic review and meta-analysis intend to evaluate the impact of different neoadjuvant treatments in pCR rates in this population, beyond traditional standard chemotherapy.

Methods

We performed the present systematic review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [25]. The Prospero registration number is CRD42020192946.

Search strategy and selection criteria

The following electronic bibliographic databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, Web of Science database, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. All clinical trials regarding NACT in early BRCA-mutated TNBC that were published from 2001 to 2021 were retrieved, with no language restriction. Abstracts and presentations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) from 2001 to 2021, were also reviewed to identify relevant unpublished studies.

Two investigators (OC and CS) independently searched the databases, using search terms mainly relating to neoadjuvant treatment in BRCA TNBC patients. Specific keywords and free text terms were combined with Boolean operators. The following search phrase was used: (breast OR mammary) AND (cancer OR cancers OR tumor OR neoplasm OR carcinoma) AND (BRCA) AND (neoadjuvant chemotherapy OR induction chemotherapy OR pre-operative chemotherapy) AND (TNBC OR triple-negative OR triple negative OR basal-like OR HER2 negative) AND (pathological complete response OR pCR), without any limits or restrictions. To be eligible, studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) prospective, retrospective or randomized clinical trial in patients with pathogenic BRCA mutated early TNBC; (2) must have enrolled BRCA TNBC patients receiving NACT; (3) must have provided data on pCR. We excluded (1) case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, animal, or in vitro studies; (2); ongoing studies with results not presented nor published at the time of the literature search.

The investigators (OC, CS) independently double-screened and reviewed the list of records retrieved in accordance with the above-mentioned criteria, to identify potentially eligible articles. When discrepant opinions on study selection among investigators occurred, a third author functioned as tiebreaker; when no compromise was reached, all authors were consulted.

The PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1) summarizes the process of the search strategy for study selection (screening, eligibility, inclusion).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Literature search PRISMA flowchart

Full size image

Data extraction

The following information was extracted and included: study name, first author, year of publication, study design, stage of disease, number of BRCA mutated TNBC patients enrolled per regimen(s) of NACT or other treatments, number of patients achieving pCR. Toxicity profile, specifically number of patients with grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) was also retrieved when available. A funnel-plot was performed to assess for potential publication bias -Fig. 10.

Study objectives

The primary goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy, in terms of pCR of different neoadjuvant treatment regimens other than standard chemotherapy in the population of gBRCA mutated TNBC patients.

Outcomes

The primary efficacy endpoint was the achievement of pCR after neoadjuvant treatment regimens other than standard chemotherapy. The most widely accepted definition of pCR is the absence of residual invasive disease in the breast and sampled axillary nodes (ypT0/is, ypN0). Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) was scored for all patients using the Symmans criteria [26]. Patients who had pCR (RCB 0) were included; near pCR (RCB I) cases were not included in this study.

Other secondary outcomes were evaluated and extracted when available, such as disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) or event- free survival (EFS).

Regarding safety, the number of patients presenting severe hematological and non-hematological AEs (grades 3 and 4) was retrieved, when reported, for each neoadjuvant treatment regimen.

Statistical analysis

The authors performed a meta-analysis of the proportion of patients who achieved pCR after treatment with each neoadjuvant regimen. Additionally, a meta-regression was performed adjusting for type of therapy used. The correspondent forest plots were elaborated, and heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran’s Q test and by statistical coefficient I2 of heterogeneity, adopting a statistical significant value of 0.05.

Statistical analyses were conducted using R plataform v3.3.2 with metafor and meta packages [27]. Forest-plots were drawn in MS® Excel®. Relative risk (RR) was calculated by MedCalc Software® v16.1 (https://www.medcalc.org/) to evaluate the impact of the addition of different therapies.

Results

A total of 1228 studies was identified through the initial search strategy (Fig. 1). After screening the abstracts and reviewing the full texts, a total of 31 trials involving 619 gBRCA mutated TNBC patients were selected for the final analysis.

Among the 619 gBRCA mutated TNBC patients included in the analysis, 139 patients received cisplatin alone (Table 1). Table 2 shows patients (n = 133) who were treated with platin derivatives combined with anthracyclines and taxanes. One single study [28] included 10 patients who were not treated with taxanes, and 18 patients from other study [29]. Fifty-three patients received a combination of standard NACT (anthracycline, cyclophosphamide, taxanes) with carboplatin (Table 3).

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regimens: cisplatin in monotherapy
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regimens: platin derivates (cisplatin or carboplatin) and anthracycline with/without taxanes
Full size table
Table 3 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regimens: standard chemotherapy regimen (anthracycline, cyclophosphamide, taxanes) and carboplatin
Full size table

Table 4 presents selected trials with patients treated with carboplatin and taxanes (n = 108) and Table 5 present one single study [38] in which patients were treated with carboplatin, iniparib and gemcitabine. Eighty-three patients received standard chemotherapy, carboplatin and a PARPi (Table 6) and 19 patients received a PARPi alone (Table 7). Table 8 describes cases (n = 65) who were treated with an anti-VEGF agent associated with standard chemotherapy and carboplatin. Only three patients were treated with eribuline and carboplatin (Table 9).

Table 4 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regimens: carboplatin plus taxanes
Full size table
Table 5 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regimens: carboplatin + gemcitabine + Iniparib
Full size table
Table 6 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regiments: carboplatin + standard NACT + PARPi
Full size table
Table 7 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regimens: PARPi alone
Full size table
Table 8 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regiments standard NACT + anti-VEGF antibody
Full size table
Table 9 Characteristics of studies included based on treatment regiments: carboplatin + eribulin
Full size table

Proportion of pCR achieved

In gBRCA mutated TNBC patients who received cisplatin in monotherapy, the proportion of patients who achieved pCR was 0.53 (95%CI [0.30, 0.76]) (Fig. 2). When treatment was a combination of standard chemotherapy and platin derivatives the proportion of pCR increased to 0.62 (95%CI [0.48, 0.76] (Fig. 3). Similarly, the group who received carboplatin and taxane achieved a proportion of pCR of 0.63 (95%CI [0.47, 0.79]) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot- Cisplatin in monotherapy

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot- Standard chemotherapy and carboplatin

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot- Carboplatin and taxanes

Full size image

The group of patients treated with platin derivatives, anthracyclines ± taxanes achieved the highest proportion of pCR, 0.66 (95%CI [0.57, 0.76]) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest Plot- Carboplatin + anthracyclines ± taxanes

Full size image

With respect to gBRCA mutated TNBC patients treated with PARPi alone pCR achievement of was seen in a proportion of 0.55 (95%CI [0.30, 0.81]) (Fig. 6). When standard chemotherapy and platin derivatives were combined with PARPi the proportion of pCR did not change, 0.55 (95%CI [0.45, 0.66]) (Fig. 7).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest Plot- PARP inhibitor alone

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest Plot- Carboplatin + Standard NACT + PARPi

Full size image

The group of patients treated with taxane, anthracycline and anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) achieved a proportion of pCR of 0.62 (95%CI [0.50, 0.73]) (Fig. 8) although one study also included carboplatin [49], and another cyclophosphamide in the treatment regimens [21].

Fig. 8
figure 8

Forest Plot- Carboplatin + Standard NACT + anti VEGF antibody

Full size image

Only one study evaluated the association of carboplatin and eribulin, which achieved pCR proportion in two-thirds of patients [50].

Figure 9 displays the proportion of pCR achieved with different treatment regimens and the corresponding number of patients. The largest group was treated with cisplatin in monotherapy and achieved the lowest proportion of pCR achievement. On the other hand, the highest pCR was achieved in the group treated with platin derivates, anthracyclines ± taxanes which included the second highest number of patients.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Bubbleplot graphic showing the proportion of different treatments in pCR achievement. The size of a bubble represents the number of patients included in each group

Full size image

The symmetric funnel plot for this meta-analysis shows an additional indicator of the absence of publication bias and study heterogeneity (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Funnel plot assessment of publication bias for pCR in patients receiving NACT and platinum-based therapies for early TNBC with gBRCA mutations

Full size image

Effect of specific treatment agents on pCR achievement

Addition of taxanes to platin derivatives

The effect of platin derivatives in pCR achievement significantly increased when a taxane was added (Relative Risk (RR), RR = 1.268; 95% CI [1,013, 1.588]), indicating a positive effect of combining carboplatin and taxanes.

Addition of standard chemotherapy to platin derivates

The effect of standard NACT in achieving pCR in gBRCA mutated TNBC patients was evaluated by comparing standard NACT with platin derivates versus platin derivates alone, showing a RR of 1.234 (95% CI [0.936, 1.672]).

Addition of PARPi to standard NACT

The effect of PARPi in achieving pCR in gBRCA mutated TNBC was evaluated by comparing the addition of PARPi to standard NACT with platin derivates versus standard NACT with platin. A RR of 1,089 95% CI [0.814, 1.458]) was found, denoting no contribution of PARPi in this setting.

The impact of standard NACT plus platin in the presence of PARPi versus PARPi alone was also assessed, resulting in a RR of 1,053 95% CI [0.659, 1.681]).

Addition of anti-VEGF

The combination of anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) with standard NACT and platin derivates showed a RR of 0.997 (95% CI [0.762, 1.304]) when compared with the same treatment in the absence of anti- VEGF denoting no contribution of anti-VEGF in the achieving pCR.

Long term outcomes

Long-term outcomes such as DFS, EFS and OS, were reported in some of the included studies but very few discriminate results according to BRCA status. Holanek et al. [29] reported 85.5% of DFS after 3 years of follow-up in patients treated with carboplatin, compared with 76.1% of patients who did not receive carboplatin. Fontaine et al. [26] reported EFS an OS as secondary endpoints. From a total of 63 patients, 9 patients relapsed. In Walsh et al. [36], DFS, metastasis-free survival and breast cancer-specific survival were evaluated, with no significant difference between groups. A survival analysis was conducted by Yuan et al. [45] with a DFS of 87.3% and OS of 90.2% for a median follow up of 3-year. Similar results were found by Kaklamani et al. [50] with a median follow-up of 16.8 months and a progression-free survival of 76.8%. Nevertheless, none of the previous studies discriminated the subgroup of TNBC gBRCA patients, which might constraint generalization of conclusions.

The longer follow-up (47.3 months) of GeparSixto [49] showed a significant increase in DFS in TNBC when treated with paclitaxel, doxorubicin and carboplatin, but the benefit was restricted to the non-BRCA subgroup. In Wunderle et al. [42], patients who achieved pCR had better DFS and OS rates compared with those who did not achieve pCR, regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status.

Fasching et al. [21] analyzed BRCA mutated TNBC patients with regard to prognosis and found that patients with BRCA mutations had a significantly better DFS (HR = 0.644, 95% CI[0.415, 0.998], p = 0.047) than those with no mutations.

Other long-term outcomes were reported by Zang et al. [34],such as recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant recurrence-free survival and OS, concluding that there were no differences in survival between carriers and non- carriers of BRCA mutation who received chemotherapy with platin derivates.

Safety outcomes

Hematological effects

Several studies reported grade 3 and 4 hematological AE (i.e. neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia) (Table 10). However, most of them did not report adverse effects according to BRCA status. The most common hematological adverse effect was neutropenia. This was very significant in patients treated with carboplatin, standard NACT and anti-VEGF agent, with an incidence of 76.6%. On the other hand, groups treated with PARPi or cisplatin alone presented the lowest incidences of neutropenia, 5.8% and 3.6% respectively, while the group treated with carboplatin and eribulin revealed an incidence of 60%. Concerning anemia, the highest incidence was reported in the group treated with carboplatin, standard NACT and PARPi (25.1%).

Table 10 Incidence of hematological adverse effects with different neoadjuvant treatment regimens, regardless of BRCA status
Full size table

Non-hematological effects

Table 11 presents a summary of reported non-hematological AEs. The group of carboplatin, standard NACT and anti-VEGF agent showed the highest incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects (27,7%) cardiac disorders (6,7%), renal and urinary (4,8%) and skin and subcutaneous tissues AEs (7,1%). The group treated with carboplatin, gemcitabine and PARPi also presented considerable gastrointestinal symptoms, in up to 24,7% of cases.

Table 11 Incidence of non-hematological adverse effects with different neoadjuvant treatment regimens
Full size table

Discussion

The goal of this systematic review was to assess the proportion of pCR in gBRCA TNBC patients when neoadjuvant treatments regimens other than standard ones were used.

A lot of efforts has been done to identify predictive markers for the use of platinum, driven by the hypothesis that tumors with deficient homologous recombination, such as those with gBRCA1/2 mutations, may be better targeted by carboplatin due to their inability to repair double-strand DNA breaks induced by platinum salts. However, its efficacy for breast cancer with BRCA germline mutations remains inconclusive.

Our results point to a significant role of standard NACT (anthracyclines, taxanes and cyclophosphamide) in this setting, as the combination of carboplatin with standard regimens yielded a proportion of pCR achievement of 0.62 (95%CI 0.48–0.76), higher than in patients treated with cisplatin alone [0.53 (95%CI 0.30–0.76); risk ratio 1.234 (95% CI 0.936–1.672)].

Accordingly, in our meta-analysis, patients treated with platin derivatives plus an anthracycline with or without a taxane (two studies without taxanes) achieved the highest proportion of pCR, 0.66 (95%CI [0.57, 0.76]), closely followed by the group who received carboplatin and taxane, in which a proportion of pCR of 0.63 (95%CI [0.47, 0.79]) was achieved. Interestingly, analysis of pCR with anthracyclines and taxanes in the presence of platin derivates favored anthracyclines, although hematological AEs increased with these agents.

Previously published meta-analysis that assessed the addition of platinum to standard NACT found an improvement of pCR rates for patients with BRCA mutations, although this was not a statistically significant [5116]. Similar results were obtained in our previous meta-analysis, which revealed an increased pCR rate in BRCA mutation carriers (58.4%) compared with non-carriers (50.7%), but with no statistical significance [19].

The lowest proportion of pCR rate in our study (0.53 (95%CI [0.30, 0.76]) was found in the group of 139 patients treated with cisplatin in monotherapy.

Besides platin agents, other neoadjuvant treatments were reported in the trials included in this meta-analysis. PARP enzymes play a major part in DNA repair mechanisms and inhibition of PARP activity leads to the accumulation of double-strand DNA breaks. These breaks are normally repaired by double-strand homologous recombination pathways that include the tumor-suppressor proteins BRCA1 and BRCA2. Thus, gBRCA mutated TNBC as well as the BRCAness phenotype are in theory particularly vulnerable to PARPi [52].

In our study, when PARPi (talazoparib or olaparib) were used in monotherapy pCR was the same (0.55 (95% CI [0.30, 0.81])) as when added to standard chemotherapy and carboplatin (0.55 (95% CI [0.54, 0.66])), only with a much lower incidence of hematologic toxicity.

However, when PARPi were added to standard chemotherapy and carboplatin, proportion of pCR was lower than that of treatment with standard chemotherapy and carboplatin in the absence of PARPi (0.62 (95%CI [0.48, 0.76])). These results point to a neutral to non-beneficial effect of PARPi in this setting. This is surprising as it would be expected that the addition of PARPi would increase pCR rate when compared to those treated with standard chemotherapy and carboplatin. This has been shown by a recent study which found significantly longer survival free of invasive or distant disease when using olaparib as adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and local therapy in early breast cancer patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant [53]. Likewise, in the I-SPY2 phase 2 trial, the addition of veliparib and carboplatin to standard NACT improved pCR from 26% in the control arm to 51% in the veliparib–carboplatin group of TNBC patients [54].

The VEGF pathway plays a key role in the pathophysiology of TNBC. However, in our study, the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy with platin derivatives did not yield any benefits since a similar proportion of pCR achievement was obtained in both groups 0.62 (95%CI [0.50–0.73]). Moreover, patients in this group reported the higher incidence of neutropenia (over 76%).

The evaluation of pCR is of extreme importance. However, the real impact of this outcome in long term clinical results is not yet clear. In this study we tried to consider other outcomes but few of the included studies reported long-term outcomes in relation to BRCA status. The vast majority did not discriminate between subgroups and reported outcomes like DFS or OS for the entire group of TNBC patients. Only two studies, GeparSixto [49] and Fasching et al. [21], separately analyzed BRCA mutated TNBC patients and found that pCR was a strong predictor of DFS for patients without BRCA, but not for patients with BRCA mutations. Nevertheless, with regard to prognosis, patients with a BRCA pathogenic variant had a significantly better DFS.

It is important to point out that few trials were sufficiently powered enough to assess long-term outcomes in the TNBC gBRCA mutated group. Hence, the question of clinical utility of different treatment approaches in this subgroup remains unanswered and further research is necessary.

A recent publication exploring safety issues in the neoadjuvant setting concludes that gBRCA1/2 mutated patients show a higher risk of hematological toxicity when treated with regimens including a taxane [55]. On the contrary, our study demonstrates higher adverse hematological AEs with the addition of anthracyclines, PARPi and anti-VEGF to a standard regimen with platin. This difference may be related to the lack of distinction of AEs according to the BRCA1/2 status.

Our study presents several limitations. Major limitations are related to the small number of patients with gBRCA TNBC included in the different trials and heterogeneity between trials (related to study design, drugs and doses of treatment regimens). Nonetheless, gBRCA mutated TNBC patients are rarely distinguished in trials and such approach is considered the only way to obtain conclusions.

Almost 20% of breast cancer patients share histological features and clinical outcomes with BRCA1/2 related cancers without detectable gBRCA1/2 mutations, a phenotype defined as BRCAness. Beyond gBRCA mutations, somatic BRCA mutation and BRCA silencing through promotor hypermethylation or alterations affecting other genes related to homologous recombination [10] that can mimic the BRCAness state. Importantly, BRCA1 methylated and gBRCA1 mutated TNBCs share gene expression and immune profiles and seem to have a similar outcome after adjuvant chemotherapy [56]. Consequently, another limitation of our study was to include only gBRCA mutations and not all cases with the BRCAness phenotype.

To our knowledge this is the first study that gathers information on gBRCA mutation TNBC patients, a subgroup with many singularities often not separately analyzed in published trials. Our assessment of neoadjuvant treatments in this distinct group of TNBC revealed clinically relevant conclusions with possible impact on treatment options. It is also noteworthy that this is the first study in this subset of patients of such a wide range of treatments beyond conventional chemotherapy.

Conclusions

This study showed that patients with gBRCA mutated TNBC patients treated with cisplatin in monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting present a lower pCR when compared with standard chemotherapy combined with platin derivatives, strengthening the role of standard chemotherapy. Likewise, the addition of PARPi to standard chemotherapy and carboplatin decreased the proportion of pCR denoting no contribution of PARPi in this setting and favoring the role of standard chemotherapy and platin derivates. The highest proportion of pCR was found with the combination of platin derivates and anthracyclines ± taxanes.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Li X, Yang J, Peng L, Sahin AA, Huo L, Ward KC, O’Regan R, Torres MA, Meisel JL. Triple-negative breast cancer has worse overall survival and cause-specific survival than non-triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(2):279–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4059-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, Zackrisson S, Senkus E, clinicalguidelines@esmo.org EGCEa. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-updagger. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(8):1194–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elghazaly H, Rugo HS, Azim HA, Swain SM, Arun B, Aapro M, Perez EA, Anderson BO, Penault-Llorca F, Conte P, El Saghir NS, Yip CH, Ghosn M, Poortmans P, Shehata MA, Giuliano AE, Leung JWT, Guarneri V, Gligorov J, Gulluoglu BM, Abdel Aziz H, Frolova M, Sabry M, Balch CM, Orecchia R, El-Zawahry HM, Al-Sukhun S, Abdel Karim K, Kandil A, Paltuev RM, Foheidi M, El-Shinawi M, ElMahdy M, Abulkhair O, Yang W, Aref AT, Bakkach J, Bahie Eldin N, Elghazawy H (2021) Breast-Gynaecological & Immuno-Oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) Consensus and Recommendations for the Management of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 13 (9) https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092262

  5. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, Symmans WF, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hennessy B, Green M, Cristofanilli M, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, Bonnefoi H, Cameron D, Gianni L, Valagussa P, Swain SM, Prowell T, Loibl S, Wickerham DL, Bogaerts J, Baselga J, Perou C, Blumenthal G, Blohmer J, Mamounas EP, Bergh J, Semiglazov V, Justice R, Eidtmann H, Paik S, Piccart M, Sridhara R, Fasching PA, Slaets L, Tang S, Gerber B, Geyer CE, Pazdur R, Ditsch N, Rastogi P, Eiermann W, von Minckwitz G. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. The Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, Yu X, Zhang Y, Liu M, Walls A, Bousamra A, Ramineni M, Sinn B, Hunt K, Buchholz TA, Valero V, Buzdar AU, Yang W, Brewster AM, Moulder S, Pusztai L, Hatzis C, Hortobagyi GN. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1049–60. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Badve S, Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ, Baehner FL, Decker T, Eusebi V, Fox SB, Ichihara S, Jacquemier J, Lakhani SR, Palacios J, Rakha EA, Richardson AL, Schmitt FC, Tan PH, Tse GM, Weigelt B, Ellis IO, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like and triple-negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for pathologists and oncologists. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(2):157–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma P, Klemp JR, Kimler BF, Mahnken JD, Geier LJ, Khan QJ, Elia M, Connor CS, McGinness MK, Mammen JM, Wagner JL, Ward C, Ranallo L, Knight CJ, Stecklein SR, Jensen RA, Fabian CJ, Godwin AK. Germline BRCA mutation evaluation in a prospective triple-negative breast cancer registry: implications for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome testing. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(3):707–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2980-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Staaf J, Glodzik D, Bosch A, Vallon-Christersson J, Reutersward C, Hakkinen J, Degasperi A, Amarante TD, Saal LH, Hegardt C, Stobart H, Ehinger A, Larsson C, Ryden L, Loman N, Malmberg M, Kvist A, Ehrencrona H, Davies HR, Borg A, Nik-Zainal S. Whole-genome sequencing of triple-negative breast cancers in a population-based clinical study. Nat Med. 2019;25(10):1526–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0582-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Davies H, Glodzik D, Morganella S, Yates LR, Staaf J, Zou X, Ramakrishna M, Martin S, Boyault S, Sieuwerts AM, Simpson PT, King TA, Raine K, Eyfjord JE, Kong G, Borg A, Birney E, Stunnenberg HG, van de Vijver MJ, Borresen-Dale AL, Martens JW, Span PN, Lakhani SR, Vincent-Salomon A, Sotiriou C, Tutt A, Thompson AM, Van Laere S, Richardson AL, Viari A, Campbell PJ, Stratton MR, Nik-Zainal S. HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat Med. 2017;23(4):517–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4292.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Litton JK, Hurvitz SA, Mina LA, Rugo HS, Lee KH, Goncalves A, Diab S, Woodward N, Goodwin A, Yerushalmi R, Roche H, Im YH, Eiermann W, Quek RGW, Usari T, Lanzalone S, Czibere A, Blum JL, Martin M, Ettl J. Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(11):1526–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2098.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Goncalves A, Lee KH, Fehrenbacher L, Yerushalmi R, Mina LA, Martin M, Roche H, Im YH, Quek RGW, Markova D, Tudor IC, Hannah AL, Eiermann W, Blum JL. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):753–63. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1802905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Masuda N, Delaloge S, Li W, Armstrong A, Wu W, Goessl C, Runswick S, Domchek SM. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Litton JK, Scoggins ME, Hess KR, Adrada BE, Murthy RK, Damodaran S, DeSnyder SM, Brewster AM, Barcenas CH, Valero V, Whitman GJ, Schwartz-Gomez J, Mittendorf EA, Thompson AM, Helgason T, Ibrahim N, Piwnica-Worms H, Moulder SL, Arun BK. Neoadjuvant Talazoparib for patients with operable breast cancer with a germline BRCA pathogenic variant. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(5):388–94. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Poggio F, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, Ponde NF, La Valle G, Del Mastro L, de Azambuja E, Lambertini M. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, Grzybowska E, Budryk M, Stawicka M, Mierzwa T, Szwiec M, Wisniowski R, Siolek M, Dent R, Lubinski J, Narod S. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):375–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.7019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, Marczyk E, Jasiowka M, Gronwald J, Jakubowicz J, Cybulski C, Wisniowski R, Godlewski D, Lubinski J, Narod SA. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(2):401–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3100-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Caramelo O, Silva C, Caramelo F, Frutuoso C, Almeida-Santos T. The effect of neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in BRCA mutated triple negative breast cancers -systematic review and meta-analysis. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2019;17:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-019-0111-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pohl-Rescigno E, Hauke J, Loibl S, Mobus V, Denkert C, Fasching PA, Kayali M, Ernst C, Weber-Lassalle N, Hanusch C, Tesch H, Muller V, Altmuller J, Thiele H, Untch M, Lubbe K, Nurnberg P, Rhiem K, Furlanetto J, Lederer B, Jackisch C, Nekljudova V, Schmutzler RK, Schneeweiss A, Hahnen E. Association of germline variant status with therapy response in high-risk early-stage breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the GeparOcto randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(5):744–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fasching PA, Loibl S, Hu C, Hart SN, Shimelis H, Moore R, Schem C, Tesch H, Untch M, Hilfrich J, Rezai M, Gerber B, Costa SD, Blohmer JU, Fehm T, Huober J, Liedtke C, Weinshilboum RM, Wang L, Ingle JN, Muller V, Nekljudova V, Weber KE, Rack B, Rubner M, von Minckwitz G, Couch FJ. BRCA1/2 mutations and bevacizumab in the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: response and prognosis results in patients with triple-negative breast cancer from the Geparquinto study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(22):2281–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.77.2285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Loibl S, Weber KE, Timms KM, Elkin EP, Hahnen E, Fasching PA, Lederer B, Denkert C, Schneeweiss A, Braun S, Salat CT, Rezai M, Blohmer JU, Zahm DM, Jackisch C, Gerber B, Klare P, Kummel S, Schem C, Paepke S, Schmutzler R, Rhiem K, Penn S, Reid J, Nekljudova V, Hartman AR, von Minckwitz G, Untch M. Survival analysis of carboplatin added to an anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HRD score as predictor of response-final results from GeparSixto. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(12):2341–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy460.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Rezai M, Fasching PA, Tesch H, Eggemann H, Schrader I, Kittel K, Hanusch C, Kreienberg R, Solbach C, Gerber B, Jackisch C, Kunz G, Blohmer JU, Huober J, Hauschild M, Fehm T, Muller BM, Denkert C, Loibl S, Nekljudova V, Untch M, German Breast G, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie-Breast Study G (2012) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab for HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366 (4):299-309 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1111065

  24. Diana A, Carlino F, Franzese E, Oikonomidou O, Criscitiello C, De Vita F, Ciardiello F, Orditura M. Early triple negative breast cancer: conventional treatment and emerging therapeutic landscapes. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(4):819. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12040819.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339: b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Fontaine C, Renard V, Van den Bulk H, Vuylsteke P, Glorieux P, Dopchie C, Decoster L, Vanacker L, de Azambuja E, De Greve J, Awada A, Wildiers H. Weekly carboplatin plus neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based regimen in early triple-negative breast cancer: a prospective phase II trial by the breast cancer task force of the Belgian society of medical oncology (BSMO). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;176(3):607–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05259-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Viechtbauer,. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Saether NH, Skuja E, Irmejs A, Maksimenko J, Miklasevics E, Purkalne G, Gardovskis J. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1-positive breast cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis and literature review. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2018;16:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-018-0092-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Holanek M, Bilek O, Nenutil R, Kazda T, Selingerova I, Zvarikova M, Palacova M, Krasenska M, Vyzula R, Petrakova K. Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant therapy with platinum-based agents for patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Germline mutations - a retrospective analysis of breast cancer patients treated at MMCI Brno. Klin Onkol. 2019;32(Supplementum2):31–5. https://doi.org/10.14735/amko2019S31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silver DP, Richardson AL, Eklund AC, Wang ZC, Szallasi Z, Li Q, Juul N, Leong CO, Calogrias D, Buraimoh A, Fatima A, Gelman RS, Ryan PD, Tung NM, De Nicolo A, Ganesan S, Miron A, Colin C, Sgroi DC, Ellisen LW, Winer EP, Garber JE. Efficacy of neoadjuvant Cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1145–53. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4725.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kolacinska A, Chalubinska J, Blasinska-Morawiec M, Dowgier-Witczak I, Fendler W, Kordek R, Morawiec Z. Pathological complete response in younger and older breast cancer patients. Arch Med Sci. 2012;8(2):310–5. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2012.28559.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Moiseyenko VM, Dolmatov GD, Moiseyenko FV, Ivantsov AO, Volkov NM, Chubenko VA, Abduloeva N, Bogdanov AA, Sokolenko AP, Imyanitov EN. High efficacy of cisplatin neoadjuvant therapy in a prospective series of patients carrying BRCA1 germ-line mutation. Med Oncol. 2015;32(4):89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0514-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tung N, Arun B, Hacker MR, Hofstatter E, Toppmeyer DL, Isakoff SJ, Borges V, Legare RD, Isaacs C, Wolff AC, Marcom PK, Mayer EL, Lange PB, Goss AJ, Jenkins C, Krop IE, Winer EP, Schnitt SJ, Garber JE. TBCRC 031: randomized phase II study of neoadjuvant cisplatin versus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in germline BRCA carriers With HER2-negative breast cancer (the INFORM trial). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(14):1539–48. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03292.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang J, Yao L, Liu Y, Ouyang T, Li J, Wang T, Fan Z, Fan T, Lin B, Xie Y. Impact of the addition of carboplatin to anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival in BRCA1/2-mutated triple-negative breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(4):941–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33234.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sella T, Gal Yam EN, Levanon K, Rotenberg TS, Gadot M, Kuchuk I, Molho RB, Itai A, Modiano TM, Gold R, Kaufman B, Shimon SP. Evaluation of tolerability and efficacy of incorporating carboplatin in neoadjuvant anthracycline and taxane based therapy in a BRCA1 enriched triple-negative breast cancer cohort. Breast. 2018;40:141–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.05.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Walsh EM, Shalaby A, O’Loughlin M, Keane N, Webber MJ, Kerin MJ, Keane MM, Glynn SA, Callagy GM. Outcome for triple negative breast cancer in a retrospective cohort with an emphasis on response to platinum-based neoadjuvant therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5066-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Loibl S, O’Shaughnessy J, Untch M, Sikov WM, Rugo HS, McKee MD, Huober J, Golshan M, von Minckwitz G, Maag D, Sullivan D, Wolmark N, McIntyre K, Ponce Lorenzo JJ, Metzger Filho O, Rastogi P, Symmans WF, Liu X, Geyer CE. Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):497–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30111-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Telli ML, Jensen KC, Vinayak S, Kurian AW, Lipson JA, Flaherty PJ, Timms K, Abkevich V, Schackmann EA, Wapnir IL, Carlson RW, Chang PJ, Sparano JA, Head B, Goldstein LJ, Haley B, Dakhil SR, Reid JE, Hartman AR, Manola J, Ford JM. Phase II study of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and Iniparib as neoadjuvant therapy for triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer with assessment of a tumor-based measure of genomic instability: PrECOG 0105. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(17):1895–901. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.57.0085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Gonzalez-Rivera M, Lobo M, Lopez-Tarruella S, Jerez Y, Del Monte-Millan M, Massarrah T, Ramos-Medina R, Ocana I, Picornell A, Santillan Garzon S, Perez-Carbornero L, Garcia-Saenz JA, Gomez H, Moreno F, Marquez-Rodas I, Fuentes H, Martin M. Frequency of germline DNA genetic findings in an unselected prospective cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients participating in a platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(3):507–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3792-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Echavarria I, Lopez-Tarruella S, Picornell A, Garcia-Saenz JA, Jerez Y, Hoadley K, Gomez HL, Moreno F, Monte-Millan MD, Marquez-Rodas I, Alvarez E, Ramos-Medina R, Gayarre J, Massarrah T, Ocana I, Cebollero M, Fuentes H, Barnadas A, Ballesteros AI, Bohn U, Perou CM, Martin M. Pathological response in a triple-negative breast cancer cohort treated with neoadjuvant carboplatin and docetaxel according to Lehmann’s refined classification. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(8):1845–52. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1912.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sharma P, Lopez-Tarruella S, Garcia-Saenz JA, Ward C, Connor CS, Gomez HL, Prat A, Moreno F, Jerez-Gilarranz Y, Barnadas A, Picornell AC, Del Monte-Millan M, Gonzalez-Rivera M, Massarrah T, Pelaez-Lorenzo B, Palomero MI, Gonzalez Del Val R, Cortes J, Fuentes Rivera H, Bretel Morales D, Marquez-Rodas I, Perou CM, Wagner JL, Mammen JM, McGinness MK, Klemp JR, Amin AL, Fabian CJ, Heldstab J, Godwin AK, Jensen RA, Kimler BF, Khan QJ, Martin M. Efficacy of neoadjuvant carboplatin plus docetaxel in triple-negative breast cancer: combined analysis of two cohorts. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(3):649–57. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wunderle M, Gass P, Haberle L, Flesch VM, Rauh C, Bani MR, Hack CC, Schrauder MG, Jud SM, Emons J, Erber R, Ekici AB, Hoyer J, Vasileiou G, Kraus C, Reis A, Hartmann A, Lux MP, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA, Hein A. BRCA mutations and their influence on pathological complete response and prognosis in a clinical cohort of neoadjuvantly treated breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(1):85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4797-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang C, Zhang J, Wang Y, Ouyang T, Li J, Wang T, Fan Z, Fan T, Lin B, Xie Y. Prevalence of BRCA1 mutations and responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among BRCA1 carriers and non-carriers with triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(3):523–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu559.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Menghi F, Yuan Y, Somlo G, Liu E Abstract P3–06–09: BRCA mutations and not type 1 tandem duplicator phenotypes are associated with pathological complete response in patients with triple negative breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. In: 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, Feb 2019 2019. vol 4. Cancer Research, pp P3–06–09-P03–06–09 https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS18-P3-06-09

  45. Yuan Y, Lee JS, Yost SE, Li SM, Frankel PH, Ruel C, Schmolze D, Robinson K, Tang A, Martinez N, Stewart D, Waisman J, Kruper L, Jones V, Menicucci A, Uygun S, Yoder E, van der Baan B, Yim JH, Yeon C, Somlo G, Mortimer J. Phase II trial of neoadjuvant carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Oncologist. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13574.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Severson TM, Wolf DM, Yau C, Peeters J, Wehkam D, Schouten PC, Chin SF, Majewski IJ, Michaut M, Bosma A, Pereira B, Bismeijer T, Wessels L, Caldas C, Bernards R, Simon IM, Glas AM, Linn S, van ’t Veer L,. The BRCA1ness signature is associated significantly with response to PARP inhibitor treatment versus control in the I-SPY 2 randomized neoadjuvant setting. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0861-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Litton JK, Scoggins M, Ramirez DL, Murthy RK, Whitman GJ, Hess KR, Adrada BE, Moulder SL, Barcenas CH, Valero V, Gomez JS, Mittendorf EA, Thompson A, Helgason T, Mills GB, Piwnica-Worms H, Arun BK. A feasibility study of neoadjuvant talazoparib for operable breast cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation demonstrates marked activity. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-017-0052-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Eikesdal HP, Yndestad S, Blix ES, Lundgren S, Vagstad G, Espelid H, Gilje B, Janssen EA, Geisler J, Aas T, Aase H, Knappskog S, Lønning PE (2019) Neoadjuvant olaparib monotherapy in primary triple negative breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 30 https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz240.010

  49. Hahnen E, Lederer B, Hauke J, Loibl S, Krober S, Schneeweiss A, Denkert C, Fasching PA, Blohmer JU, Jackisch C, Paepke S, Gerber B, Kummel S, Schem C, Neidhardt G, Huober J, Rhiem K, Costa S, Altmuller J, Hanusch C, Thiele H, Muller V, Nurnberg P, Karn T, Nekljudova V, Untch M, von Minckwitz G, Schmutzler RK. Germline mutation status, pathological complete response, and disease-free survival in triple-negative breast cancer: secondary analysis of the Geparsixto randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1378–85. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kaklamani VG, Jeruss JS, Hughes E, Siziopikou K, Timms KM, Gutin A, Abkevich V, Sangale Z, Solimeno C, Brown KL, Jones J, Hartman AR, Meservey C, Jovanovic B, Helenowski I, Khan SA, Bethke K, Hansen N, Uthe R, Giordano S, Rosen S, Hoskins K, Von Roenn J, Jain S, Parini V, Gradishar W. Phase II neoadjuvant clinical trial of carboplatin and eribulin in women with triple negative early-stage breast cancer (NCT01372579). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151(3):629–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3435-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang CJ, Xu Y, Lin Y, Zhu HJ, Zhou YD, Mao F, Zhang XH, Huang X, Zhong Y, Sun Q, Li CG. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer With BRCA mutations: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2020;10:592998. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.592998.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Tomao F, Papa A, Zaccarelli E, Rossi L, Caruso D, Minozzi M, Vici P, Frati L, Tomao S. Triple-negative breast cancer: new perspectives for targeted therapies. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:177–93. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S67673.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B, Viale G, Fumagalli D, Rastogi P, Gelber RD, de Azambuja E, Fielding A, Balmana J, Domchek SM, Gelmon KA, Hollingsworth SJ, Korde LA, Linderholm B, Bandos H, Senkus E, Suga JM, Shao Z, Pippas AW, Nowecki Z, Huzarski T, Ganz PA, Lucas PC, Baker N, Loibl S, McConnell R, Piccart M, Schmutzler R, Steger GG, Costantino JP, Arahmani A, Wolmark N, McFadden E, Karantza V, Lakhani SR, Yothers G, Campbell C, Geyer CE Jr, Olympi ACTSC, Investigators,. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Rugo HS, Olopade OI, DeMichele A, Yau C, van 't Veer LJ, Buxton MB, Hogarth M, Hylton NM, Paoloni M, Perlmutter J, Symmans WF, Yee D, Chien AJ, Wallace AM, Kaplan HG, Boughey JC, Haddad TC, Albain KS, Liu MC, Isaacs C, Khan QJ, Lang JE, Viscusi RK, Pusztai L, Moulder SL, Chui SY, Kemmer KA, Elias AD, Edmiston KK, Euhus DM, Haley BB, Nanda R, Northfelt DW, Tripathy D, Wood WC, Ewing C, Schwab R, Lyandres J, Davis SE, Hirst GL, Sanil A, Berry DA, Esserman LJ, Investigators IS (2016) Adaptive Randomization of Veliparib-Carboplatin Treatment in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 375 (1):23-34 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513749

  55. Furlanetto J, Mobus V, Schneeweiss A, Rhiem K, Tesch H, Blohmer JU, Lubbe K, Untch M, Salat C, Huober J, Klare P, Schmutzler R, Couch FJ, Lederer B, Gerber B, Zahm DM, Bauerfeind I, Nekljudova V, Hanusch C, Jackisch C, Link T, Hahnen E, Loibl S, Fasching PA. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations and severe haematological toxicities in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2021;145:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.12.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Glodzik D, Bosch A, Hartman J, Aine M, Vallon-Christersson J, Reutersward C, Karlsson A, Mitra S, Nimeus E, Holm K, Hakkinen J, Hegardt C, Saal LH, Larsson C, Malmberg M, Ryden L, Ehinger A, Loman N, Kvist A, Ehrencrona H, Nik-Zainal S, Borg A, Staaf J. Comprehensive molecular comparison of BRCA1 hypermethylated and BRCA1 mutated triple negative breast cancers. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17537-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to Catarina Miranda for the careful review of the manuscript.

Funding

This work received no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecology Department, Coimbra Hospital and University Centre (CHUC), EPE, Praceta Prof. Mota Pinto, 3000-075, Coimbra, Portugal

    Olga Caramelo & Cristina Frutuoso

  2. Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of Coimbra, Rua Filipe Simões n° 33, 3000-186, Coimbra, Portugal

    Cristina Silva

  3. Laboratory of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, iCBR – Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354, Coimbra, Portugal

    Francisco Caramelo

  4. Oncology Department, Coimbra Hospital and University Centre (CHUC), EPE, Praceta Prof. Mota Pinto, 3000-075, Coimbra, Portugal

    Leonor Pinto

  5. Centre for Fertility Preservation, Human Reproduction Department, Coimbra Hospital and University Centre (CHUC), EPE, Praceta Prof. Mota Pinto, 3000-075, Coimbra, Portugal

    Teresa Almeida-Santos

  6. Faculty of Medicine of the University of Coimbra, Azinhaga de Santa Comba - Celas, 3000-548, Coimbra, Portugal

    Teresa Almeida-Santos

Authors
  1. Olga Caramelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco Caramelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cristina Frutuoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leonor Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Teresa Almeida-Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OC conceived the literature review and the design of the review. OC and CS undertook all the literature searches and data extraction. OC, CS and FC assumed the statistical analysis. OC, CS and FC drafted the manuscript and all authors read, edited and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Caramelo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caramelo, O., Silva, C., Caramelo, F. et al. Efficacy of different neoadjuvant treatment regimens in BRCA-mutated triple negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 20, 34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-022-00242-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-022-00242-0

Keywords

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice

ISSN: 1897-4287