---
title: "PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone in TNBC: updated meta-analysis with"
id: "frontiers-in-immunology-8-pd-1-pd-l1-inhibitors-combined-with-chemotherapy-or-as-monotherapy-versus"
canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/frontiers-in-immunology-8-pd-1-pd-l1-inhibitors-combined-with-chemotherapy-or-as-monotherapy-versus"
content_type: "clinical_feed_article"
specialty: "Oncology"
source_name: "Frontiers in Immunology"
source_url: "https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1958007"
published_at: "2026-10-06T00:00:00.000Z"
evidence_level: "Journal Feed"
license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use"
---
# PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone in TNBC: updated meta-analysis with
## Provenance & Clinical Metadata
- **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/frontiers-in-immunology-8-pd-1-pd-l1-inhibitors-combined-with-chemotherapy-or-as-monotherapy-versus
- **Specialty:** [Oncology](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/oncology.md)
- **Primary Source:** Frontiers in Immunology
- **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1958007)
- **Published At:** 2026-10-06T00:00:00.000Z
- **Evidence Rating:** Journal Feed
## Executive GIST (TL;DR)
- This systematic review and updated meta-analysis pooled 10 randomized controlled trials (5,953 patients) comparing **PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors** plus chemotherapy (or ICI monotherapy in some adjuvant settings) versus chemotherapy alone or observation in triple-negative breast cancer (**TNBC**). - Trials spanned both the metastatic setting (5 trials, n = 3,526) and early-stage setting (5 trials, n = 2,427), including KEYNOTE-522 final OS, GeparNuevo 7-year follow-up, and TORCHLIGHT phase III results. - In metastatic TNBC, pooled estimates showed improved overall survival (**OS**) (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.96; HKSJ-adjusted 0.70–1.03; I2 = 27%) and progression-free survival (**PFS**) (HR 0.82, 0.73–0.92; I2 = 35%). The OS benefit was larger in **PD-L1+** patients (HR 0.79, 0.65–0.95; I2 = 51%). - In early-stage TNBC, ICIs improved event-free/invasive disease-free survival (**EFS/iDFS**) (HR 0.75, 0.63–0.90; I2 = 0.2%) and OS (HR 0.64, 0.53–0.78; I2 = 0%), and increased pathological complete response (**pCR**) rates (OR 1.65, 1.39–1.98; I2 = 1%). - HKSJ adjustment widened confidence intervals but did not change the overall pattern of benefit across settings. Heterogeneity was moderate in metastatic analyses and near-zero in early-stage analyses. - The analysis highlights a clinically important influence of the **chemotherapy backbone**: divergent results were observed between nab-paclitaxel (positive signal, e.g., IMpassion130, TORCHLIGHT) and solvent-based paclitaxel (negative signal, IMpassion131), motivating stratified backbone analyses. - Subgroup analyses examined PD-L1 status, ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs anti-PD-L1), chemotherapy backbone, and disease stage; some numerical differences (e.g., anti-PD-1 vs anti-PD-L1) were not robust in sensitivity testing. - The review adhered to PRISMA 2020 and a pre-registered PROSPERO protocol (CRD420261356428); searches covered PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and major conference proceedings to May 2, 2026. - Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool; statistical pooling used random-effects models with DerSimonian–Laird estimator and HKSJ adjustment for CIs. Sensitivity analyses included leave-one-out, fixed-effect comparisons, and exclusion of phase II trials. - Authors conclude that **ICI + chemotherapy** provides durable survival benefit in both early and metastatic TNBC—most pronounced in **PD-L1+** populations—and call for refined biomarkers to extend benefit to PD-L1–negative patients. The chemotherapy backbone remains a critical determinant of efficacy.
## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points
Frontiers | PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy or as monotherapy versus chemotherapy alone or observation in triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis incorporating long-term survival data SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article Front. Immunol. , 06 October 2026 Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy Volume 17 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1958007 Published in Frontiers in Immunology Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy 7 impact factor 11.3 citescore Editor & Reviewers Edited by M C Myrna Candelaria Reviewed by P L Peng Liu R G Reeshu Gupta Outline Figures and Tables Figure 1 View in article Figure 2 View in article Figure 3 View in article Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the included randomized controlled trials. View in article SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article Front. Immunol. , 06 October 2026 Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy Volume 17 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1958007 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy or as monotherapy versus chemotherapy alone or observation in triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis incorporating long-term survival data B G Bing Guan † ‡ * Y C Yawen Chen † R Z Rong Zhou S Z Sijia Zhang L L Lulu Li P H Ping He Department of Pathology, Suzhou BenQ Medical Center, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China Article metrics View details Abstract Background: Multiple RCTs have established PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as standard in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but prior meta-analyses lacked complete setting coverage, mature long-term survival data, and a quantification of chemotherapy-backbone impact—critical given IMpassion130 (nab-paclitaxel, positive) vs. IMpassion131 (paclitaxel, negative). This update includes final KEYNOTE-522 OS, GeparNuevo 7-year follow-up, and TORCHLIGHT Phase III data, covering neoadjuvant to metastatic disease. Methods: We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to May 2026 plus conference proceedings; an Embase search found no additional trials. Included RCTs compared ICI + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in TNBC, stratified by setting. The primary endpoints are OS (metastatic) and EFS/iDFS (early-stage). Pooled HRs used random-effects meta-analysis with HKSJ adjustment. Results: A total of 10 RCTs (5,953 patients) met the inclusion. In the metastatic setting (five RCTs, n = 3,526), ICI improved OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.96; HKSJ-adjusted 0.70–1.03; I ² = 27%) and PFS (HR 0.82, 0.73–0.92; I ² = 35%); OS benefit was greater in PD-L1+ patients (HR 0.79, 0.65–0.95; I ² = 51%). Numerically greater OS with anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1 was not robust in the sensitivity analysis. In the early-stage setting (five RCTs, n = 2,427), ICIs improved EFS/iDFS (HR 0.75, 0.63–0.90; I ² = 0.2%) and OS (HR 0.64, 0.53–0.78; I ² = 0%) and increased pCR (OR 1.65, 1.39–1.98; I ² = 1%). HKSJ adjustment widened the Cis, but the effect patterns remained consistent. Conclusions: This update confirms a consistent survival benefit of ICI + chemotherapy in both early and metastatic TNBC, which was most pronounced in PD-L1+ populations. Long-term data show durability, especially in neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings. The divergent outcomes with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel underscore the critical role of the chemotherapy backbone. These findings support current guidelines and highlight the need for refined biomarkers to extend benefit to PD-L1-negative patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261356428 , identifier CRD420261356428. Highlights PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemo improves OS (HR 0.85) and PFS (HR 0.82) in metastatic TNBC. In early-stage TNBC, ICIs improve EFS (HR 0.75) and OS (HR 0.64). Chemotherapy backbone choice critically modulates ICI efficacy. Treatment strategy (neoadjuvant + adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant-only vs. adjuvant-only) yields comparable benefit. Moderate heterogeneity ( I ² 27%–51%) in metastatic analyses; near-zero heterogeneity ( I ² ~0%) in early-stage analyses. 1 Introduction Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), defined by the absence of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 overexpression, accounts for approximately 15%–20% of all breast cancers and is associated with a disproportionately aggressive clinical course ( 1 , 2 ). Compared with other breast cancer subtypes, TNBC is characterized by earlier age at diagnosis, higher rates of visceral and central nervous system metastases, and a median overall survival of 12–18 months in the metastatic setting ( 3 , 4 ). The limited therapeutic armamentarium for this biologically heterogeneous disease has driven an intensive search for effective targeted strategies. The immunogenic nature of TNBC—evidenced by higher tumor mutational burden, greater stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (sTIL) density, and elevated PD-L1 expression relative to other breast cancer subtypes—provided a compelling rationale for investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in this disease ( 5 , 6 ). Over the past 5 years, a series of landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in combination with standard chemotherapy across both the early-stage and metastatic settings. The IMpassion130 trial was the first phase III study to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) combined with nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1-positive metastatic TNBC ( 7 ), leading to accelerated FDA approval in 2019. However, the confirmatory IMpassion131 trial, which substituted solvent-based paclitaxel for nab-paclitaxel, failed to demonstrate either PFS or OS benefit ( 8 ), ultimately resulting in the voluntary withdrawal of the atezolizumab indication in the United States. In parallel, KEYNOTE-355 demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful OS benefit of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) combined with chemotherapy in PD-L1 CPS≥10 metastatic TNBC ( 9 ), establishing pembrolizumab as the current standard of care in this population. In the early-stage setting, KEYNOTE-522 demonstrated that neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved both event-free survival (EFS) and, as recently reported, overall survival ( 10 , 11 ), cementing this regimen as the standard of care for high-risk early-stage TNBC. Additional trials, including IMpassion031 ( 12 ), GeparNuevo ( 13 ), NeoTRIP ( 14 ), and A-BRAVE ( 15 ), have further characterized the efficacy of PD-L1 inhibitors in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, yielding a complex evidence landscape with both positive and negative findings. Several meta-analyses have synthesized the evidence on ICIs in TNBC ( 16 – 22 ). However, these analyses have important limitations. Most were published before the availability of long-term follow-up data from KEYNOTE-522 (final OS analysis, NEJM 2024) and GeparNuevo (7-year follow-up, ESMO 2025). None have comprehensively incorporated the first positive phase III data for toripalimab, a PD-1 inhibitor evaluated in the TORCHLIGHT trial ( 23 ), which represents the first Chinese anti-PD-1 antibody to demonstrate OS and PFS benefit in metastatic TNBC. Furthermore, most prior meta-analyses have treated early-stage and metastatic TNBC as a homogenous entity, obscuring differences in treatment effect magnitude and clinical significance between these distinct therapeutic contexts. We therefore conducted an updated comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all available RCTs comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (or observation) in TNBC. This analysis is distinguished from prior meta-analyses by three features: (1) simultaneous coverage of both early-stage and metastatic settings with mature overall survival data—including the first incorporation of the KEYNOTE-522 final OS analysis (NEJM 2024, median 75-month follow-up) and the 7-year GeparNuevo results (ESMO 2025) into a pooled estimate, (2) inclusion of the first positive phase III data for toripalimab (TORCHLIGHT, Nature Medicine 2024), the first Chinese anti-PD-1 antibody to demonstrate OS benefit in this disease, and (3) a stratified analytic framework that enables quantitative comparison of treatment effect magnitude across clinical settings, ICI classes, and chemotherapy backbones—an analysis motivated by the clinically instructive divergence between IMpassion130 (nab-paclitaxel, positive) and IMpassion131 (paclitaxel, negative). 2 Methods 2.1 Protocol and registration This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement ( 24 ). The protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD420261356428). 2.2 Search strategy We systematically searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to May 2, 2026. The PubMed search strategy combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free-text keywords related to triple-negative breast cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, and randomized controlled trials using Boolean operators. The complete PubMed search strategy was as follows: ((“Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms”[MeSH] OR “triple negative breast”[Title/Abstract] OR “TNBC”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors”[MeSH] OR “Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor”[MeSH] OR “B7-H1 Antigen”[MeSH] OR “PD-1”[Title/Abstract] OR “PD-L1”[Title/Abstract] OR “pembrolizumab”[Title/Abstract] OR “atezolizumab”[Title/Abstract] OR “toripalimab”[Title/Abstract] OR “nivolumab”[Title/Abstract] OR “durvalumab”[Title/Abstract] OR “avelumab”[Title/Abstract] OR “immune checkpoint”[Title/Abstract] OR “immunotherapy”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“chemotherapy”[Title/Abstract] OR “nab-paclitaxel”[Title/Abstract] OR “paclitaxel”[Title/Abstract] OR “carboplatin”[Title/Abstract] OR “gemcitabine”[Title/Abstract] OR “anthracycline”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“randomized controlled trial”[Publication Type] OR “randomized”[Title/Abstract] OR “randomised”[Title/Abstract] OR “RCT”[Title/Abstract])) Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2, 2026 using the following structured query in the Advanced Search interface: Condition/Disease = “triple negative breast cancer”; Intervention/Treatment = “pembrolizumab” OR “atezolizumab” OR “toripalimab” OR “durvalumab” OR “avelumab” OR “PD-1” OR “PD-L1”; Study Type = “Interventional (Clinical Trial)”; Phases = “Phase 2, Phase 3”; Status = “Completed, Active, not recruiting, Recruiting”. This search returned 38 records, which were exported in RIS format for screening. We also hand-searched the conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) from 2020 to 2026. The reference lists of the included studies and relevant review articles were screened for additional eligible trials. 2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria: (1) phase II or III randomized controlled trials, (2) patients with histologically confirmed triple-negative breast cancer, (3) intervention arm receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy (or as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting), (4) control arm receiving chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus placebo, or observation, and (5) reporting at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), pathological complete response (pCR), or grade ≥3 adverse events. Exclusion criteria: (1) single-arm trials, (2) non-randomized studies, (3) studies published only as conference abstracts without full-text availability (unless presenting a long-term follow-up of a previously fully published trial), and (4) studies reporting pCR as the sole outcome without survival data. 2.4 Study selection and data extraction Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, followed by full-text assessment of potentially eligible studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. For each included trial, we extracted the following data: study characteristics (trial name, phase, NCT identifier, publication year, and first author), patient demographics (sample size, age, PD-L1 status, and disease stage), treatment details (ICI agent, chemotherapy backbone, and treatment duration), and outcome data (hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for OS, PFS, EFS, and iDFS; odds ratios for pCR and grade ≥3 adverse events). For survival outcomes, we preferentially extracted data from the most recent publication or conference presentation with the longest follow-up duration. When multiple PD-L1 strata were reported within the same trial, we extracted the primary analysis population as defined in the trial protocol. All HRs, ORs, and CIs were independently verified by two reviewers (BG and RZ) against the source publications. 2.5 Risk of bias assessment Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials ( 25 ). Five domains were evaluated: randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Each trial was rated as having low risk of bias, some concerns, or high risk of bias. 2.6 Statistical analysis All analyses were stratified by clinical setting: metastatic (unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC) and early-stage (neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or combined neoadjuvant–adjuvant strategies). Within each setting, primary analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, with prespecified subgroup analyses by PD-L1 expression status. Hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes (OS, PFS, EFS, and iDFS) and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes (pCR and grade ≥3 adverse events) were pooled using random-effects models with the DerSimonian–Laird estimator ( 26 ). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I ² statistic, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% considered indicative of low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively ( 27 ), and the Cochran Q test ( P < 0.10 considered significant). The prespecified subgroup analyses included (1) PD-L1 expression status (positive vs. negative, using each trial’s defined threshold), (2) ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1), (3) chemotherapy backbone (taxane-based vs. platinum-containing vs. capecitabine), and (4) disease stage (metastatic vs. early-stage, for OS only). Sensitivity analyses were performed by (1) sequentially excluding individual trials (leave-one-out analysis) to assess the influence of any single study, (2) comparing fixed-effect and random-effects model estimates, and (3) excluding phase II trials to determine the robustness of findings restricted to phase III evidence. Funnel plots were used for visual inspection of publication bias. Formal Egger’s testing was not performed because no outcome had 10 or more contributing trials. All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.3.0) with the meta and metafor packages. Two-sided P -values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. 3 Results 3.1 Study selection The systematic literature search identified 197 records in PubMed, 38 records in ClinicalTrials.gov, and 24 additional records through hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists. After removing duplicates ( n = 19), 240 unique records underwent title and abstract screening, of which 193 were excluded. A total of 47 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, whereas 37 were excluded for the following reasons: single-arm design ( n = 11), conference abstract without full-text publication ( n = 8), subgroup or secondary analysis of included trials ( n = 7), non-TNBC population ( n = 5), review or commentary ( n = 4), and pCR reported as the sole outcome without survival data ( n = 2). A total of 10 RCTs met all of the inclusion criteria ( Figure 1 ): five in the metastatic setting (KEYNOTE-355, IMpassion130, IMpassion131, IMpassion132, and TORCHLIGHT) and five in the early-stage setting (KEYNOTE-522, IMpassion031, GeparNuevo, NeoTRIP, and A-BRAVE). Figure 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. The systematic search of PubMed ( n = 197) and ClinicalTrials.gov ( n = 38) and hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists ( n = 24) identified 259 records. After removal of duplicates ( n = 19), 240 unique records underwent title and abstract screening, of which 193 were excluded. A total of 47 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 37 were excluded for single-arm design ( n = 11), conference abstract without full-text publication ( n = 8), subgroup or secondary analysis of an included trial ( n = 7), non-TNBC population ( n = 5), review or commentary ( n = 4), and pCR reported as the sole outcome without survival data ( n = 2). A total of 10 RCTs met all inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (metastatic setting: n = 5; early-stage setting: n = 5). 3.2 Study characteristics The 10 included RCTs randomized a total of 5,953 patients ( Table 1 ; Supplementary Table S2 provides detailed baseline characteristics). In the metastatic setting ( n = 3,526), pembrolizumab was evaluated in KEYNOTE-355 ( n = 847), atezolizumab in IMpassion130 ( n = 902), IMpassion131 ( n = 651), and IMpassion132 ( n = 595), and toripalimab in TORCHLIGHT ( n = 531). Chemotherapy backbones comprised nab-paclitaxel (IMpassion130 and TORCHLIGHT), paclitaxel (IMpassion131), and gemcitabine plus carboplatin or capecitabine (IMpassion132); KEYNOTE-355 used investigator-choice chemotherapy and was excluded from backbone subgroup analyses. In the early-stage setting ( n = 2,427), pembrolizumab was evaluated in KEYNOTE-522 ( n = 1,174), atezolizumab in IMpassion031 ( n = 333) and NeoTRIP ( n = 280), durvalumab in GeparNuevo ( n = 174), and avelumab in A-BRAVE ( n = 466). Table 1 Trial Phase NCT Setting Patients ( N ) Experimental arm Control arm Primary endpoint(s) PD-L1 assay Key efficacy (latest follow-up) Metastatic setting KEYNOTE-355 III NCT02819518 1L mTNBC 847 Pembro 200 mg Q3W + chemo (nab-PTX/PTX/Gem+Cb) Placebo + chemo PFS and OS (CPS ≥ 10, CPS ≥ 1, ITT) 22C3 CPS ≥ 10: OS HR 0.73 (0.55–0.95); PFS HR 0.65 (0.49–0.86) IMpassion130 III NCT02425891 1L mTNBC 902 Atezo 840 mg Q2W + nab-PTX 100 mg/m² Placebo + nab-PTX PFS and OS (ITT, PD-L1 IC+) SP142 ITT: OS HR 0.87 (0.75–1.02); PD-L1 IC+: OS HR 0.67 (0.53–0.86) IMpassion131 III NCT03125902 1L mTNBC 651 Atezo 840 mg Q2W + PTX 90 mg/m² Placebo + PTX PFS (PD-L1+) SP142 PD-L1+: PFS HR 0.82 (0.60–1.12); OS HR 1.11 (negative) IMpassion132 III NCT03371017 Early-relapse mTNBC 595 Atezo 1,200 mg Q3W + chemo (Gem+Cb/Cape) Placebo + chemo OS (PD-L1+) SP142 PD-L1+: OS HR 0.93 (0.73–1.20); PFS HR ~1.0 TORCHLIGHT III NCT04085276 1L mTNBC 531 Toripalimab 240 mg Q3W + nab-PTX 125 mg/m² Placebo + nab-PTX PFS and OS (PD-L1+, ITT) JS311 ITT: OS HR 0.69 (0.51–0.93); PD-L1+ OS HR 0.62 (0.41–0.91) Early-stage setting KEYNOTE-522 III NCT03036488 Stage II–III TNBC 1,174 Pembro + Cb/PTX → Pembro + AC → adj Pembro Placebo + Cb/PTX → Placebo + AC → adj Placebo pCR, EFS 22C3 pCR: 64.8% vs. 51.2%; EFS HR 0.65 (0.51–0.83); OS HR 0.66 (0.50–0.87) IMpassion031 III NCT03197935 Stage II–III TNBC 333 Atezo + nab-PTX → Atezo + AC → adj Atezo Placebo + nab-PTX → placebo + AC pCR SP142 pCR: 57.6% vs. 41.1%; OR 1.95 (1.33–2.86) GeparNuevo II NCT02685059 Early TNBC 174 Durva 1.5 g Q4W + nab-PTX → EC Placebo + nab-PTX → EC pCR SP263 pCR: 53.4% vs. 44.2%; 7-year iDFS HR 0.56 (0.32–0.99); OS HR 0.33 (0.14–0.79) NeoTRIP III NCT02620280 Early high-risk TNBC 280 Atezo + Cb/nab-PTX Cb/nab-PTX EFS SP142 pCR: 48.6% vs. 44.4%; OR 1.18 (0.74–1.90); EFS HR 1.08 (0.76–1.54) ( 28 ) A-BRAVE III NCT02926196 Adjuvant high
## Related Clinical Research

- [53L10 T‑cell engager tribody for immunotherapy of multiple solid tumors — Frontiers in Immunology](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/frontiers-in-immunology-11-53l10-t-cell-engager-tribody-for-immunotherapy-of-multiple-solid-tumors.md)
- [Trastuzumab + nivolumab with gemcitabine–cisplatin as first-line therapy for HER2-positive unresec](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/nature-3-trastuzumab-plus-nivolumab-with-gemcitabine-and-cisplatin-as-first-line-therapy.md)
- [Personalized mRNA vaccine plus pembrolizumab lowers melanoma recurrence in phase 3 trial](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/medical-news-today-0-novel-mrna-vaccine-plus-immunotherapy-reduces-melanoma-relapse-in-phase-3-trial.md)
- [Challenging FDA-Approved Cancer Drug Dosages: A Patient and Research Perspective](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/kff-health-news-2-how-much-of-a-cancer-drug-is-too-much-patients-researchers-challenge-fda.md)
- [Editorial placeholder: Innovative therapeutic approaches for complex cancers — source content miss](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/frontiers-in-immunology-12-editorial-innovative-therapeutic-approaches-for-complex-cancers-exploring-new.md)

## Navigation
- [← Back to Oncology Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/oncology.md)
- [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md)
## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer

> [!CAUTION]
> MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.
> Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.