Part XIII · Triple-negative disease · Chapter 77

Adjuvant and post-neoadjuvant therapy

Why residual disease rather than stage decides what is given after surgery in this subtype.

1 · Scope, and the residual disease decision that organises it

This chapter covers what is given after surgery to a patient with triple-negative disease. What is given before surgery is in Neoadjuvant therapy and checkpoint blockade. The argument that frames both is in Selection by stage, and the price of treating everyone, which these two chapters extend with trial-level detail. Radiotherapy, bone-modifying agents, ovarian protection and surveillance are out of scope. Molecular residual disease detection is in Liquid biopsy and longitudinal monitoring.

One fact organises everything in the sections that follow. Response to neoadjuvant therapy is the strongest prognostic variable available in this subtype, with its trial-level limits set out in Endpoints, surrogates, and the overall survival question. It is generated by treatment rather than measured at baseline. A patient taken to surgery first cannot be stratified by it. The adjuvant options open to that patient are therefore narrower, which is a reason to settle the neoadjuvant question at the first consultation rather than after the operation.

The table below is the map of the whole chapter. Its rows are four different kinds of trial, and the difference between them is the population column rather than the drug.

Ten of those rows did not require this subtype to enter. CALGB 9344, NSABP B-28, ECOG E1199, US Oncology 9735, ABC trials, WSG-PlanB, CALGB 9741, GIM2, CALGB 49907 and MINDACT enrolled early breast cancer selected by nodal status, by other risk features or by age. None of them required a triple-negative result to enter. They include the largest trials in the table and have the least specific populations. Everything they say about triple-negative disease is a subgroup or an interaction test. Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and dose density argues the chemotherapy comparisons among them. MINDACT, which asked whether a genomic assay could spare chemotherapy, is argued in Adjuvant chemotherapy and the genomic assay decision.

Five rows selected triple-negative disease without reference to response. CIBOMA/GEICAM, SYSUCC-001, PATTERN, CITRINE and ALEXANDRA/IMpassion030 enrolled on pathological stage or on other risk features. Response to neoadjuvant treatment was an entry criterion in none of them. Five more required residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CREATE-X, EA1131, ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD, TROPION-Breast03 and SASCIA / GBG 102, the last of them also admitting hormone receptor-positive disease, enrolled a population that had already declared itself resistant to the chemotherapy it was given. CREATE-X did not require this subtype to enter. It enrolled HER2-negative residual disease of either hormone receptor status. Its triple-negative result is a subgroup.

Those two groups look alike in the table and are not alike in clinic. A stage-selected population contains a large fraction of patients who would have been cured by what they had already received. A residual disease population contains very few. The absolute event rate differs accordingly, so a hazard ratio measured in one does not carry the same absolute consequence in the other. Most of the apparent disagreement in this literature is disagreement about which population a number came from.

The remaining four rows are defined by response in one direction or the other. OlympiA and A-BRAVE admitted patients by residual disease or by stage, in strata they were not powered to separate. In A-BRAVE, however, the residual disease stratum carried its own co-primary disease-free survival endpoint. PEARLY randomised patients treated in either setting. OptimICE-pCR enrolls only patients with a pathological complete response. A stratified trial is not two trials. What it reports is an average over populations whose prognosis differs.

Residual disease marks resistance to the regimen that was actually given. It says nothing about a drug the tumour never met. Every trial in the sections below makes that assumption, and none of them tests it.

Two things the map cannot show matter more than anything in it. There is no column for what the patient received before surgery, so two rows that both read residual invasive disease may describe disease that survived two drugs or disease that survived four. And no reported post-surgical trial here enrolled a patient whose neoadjuvant treatment was the regimen now given. Every benchmark in this chapter was set before carboplatin and pembrolizumab entered that position.

Geography is worth one sentence. CITRINE, PATTERN and SYSUCC-001 were run in China and PEARLY in Korea. None of the cytotoxic strategies they support has been reproduced in a trial run outside those countries.

Most sections below open with the question their trials were built to answer, taken from the [Chapter Stories](stories.html) map, and close with a table filtered on that same question. The story says what was being looked for and what the design cannot settle. The table says what else is in the cell. The prose argues the decision.

2 · Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and dose density

The backbone is not in dispute anywhere in this literature. None of the trials that fixed it set out to study this subtype. Sequential anthracycline and taxane remains the standard against which everything else in this chapter is measured, on comparisons that are subtype-wide²³.

Those comparisons agree on the taxane and disagree on what it buys. CALGB 9344 and NSABP B-28 both added four cycles of paclitaxel after doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive disease, and both lowered recurrence^21,20. Five-year overall survival in B-28 was 85 percent in both arms. In CALGB 9344 it was 80% with paclitaxel against 77% without. The two trials tested the same addition and differed in what their survival analyses could resolve. That is a difference in events and follow-up rather than a disagreement about the drug. CALGB 9344 also settled a second question in passing. Escalating the doxorubicin dose changed nothing, which is the first evidence in this chapter that schedule and composition matter more than intensity.

Anthracycline omission looks like three trials disagreeing and is three different comparisons. US Oncology 9735 found docetaxel and cyclophosphamide superior to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on disease-free and overall survival at seven years, against a control arm that contained no taxane¹⁸. ABC trials put six cycles of the same docetaxel and cyclophosphamide doublet against anthracycline plus taxane and could not declare non-inferiority. Its hazard ratio for an invasive disease-free survival event was 1.202, against a predefined inferiority boundary of 1.18^15,24. WSG-PlanB compared epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel with six cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide, and found them within a 4.4 point margin^25,14. Beating an anthracycline doublet is not the same claim as matching a regimen containing a taxane and an anthracycline. The control arm is where these trials differ, not the experimental one.

ECOG E1199 is the only one of them that held composition constant and varied schedule inside a single randomisation. Weekly paclitaxel improved disease-free and overall survival against paclitaxel every three weeks. Weekly docetaxel improved neither¹⁹. The schedule effect belongs to the taxane rather than to taxanes, which is why the regimen used in this subtype is weekly paclitaxel and not weekly anything.

Dose density is a scheduling change rather than a dose increase. Total cytotoxic exposure is broadly the same in both arms of these trials, the difference being the interval between cycles. The label is routinely misread as more chemotherapy, which drives the wrong conversation about tolerability.

The two trials in that table agree in direction and neither enrolled this subtype on purpose. Both took node-positive disease of any receptor status, and both compared a two-weekly schedule with a three-weekly one inside a factorial design testing something else as well^22,17. Neither is large enough on its own to carry the decision, which is why the case for dose density is meta-analytic. The patient-level meta-analysis pooled 26 randomised trials and 37,298 women²⁶. Ten-year recurrence and ten-year breast cancer mortality were both lower with dose-intensified scheduling. The proportional reduction was similar across subtypes rather than concentrated in this one. Absolute gain therefore tracks absolute risk, which is why this schedule matters most in node-positive triple-negative disease.

Three things none of these trials provides should be said plainly. None randomised adjuvant chemotherapy against no chemotherapy in stage I triple-negative disease, so treatment below stage II is extrapolation from prognosis on the reasoning in Risk assessment and treatment selection. None stratified by receptor subtype, so every subtype-specific estimate quoted from them is an interaction test rather than a randomised allocation. And none contained a platinum or a checkpoint inhibitor, so the backbone they validated is now the part of the regimen that is least often given alone.

3 · Platinum in the adjuvant and post-neoadjuvant setting

Three different questions hide under one word, and the four trials answer them separately.

The first question is whether carboplatin added to a full backbone improves outcome. CITRINE and PEARLY both added it without removing anything, and both met their primary endpoint. Both also cost a large increase in grade 3 or worse toxicity, which is the price the table has no column for and the clinic pays first.

They are not replicates of each other, and the difference is design rather than drug. CITRINE randomised after surgery and measured disease-free survival³. PEARLY randomised patients treated in either setting and measured event-free survival, which in its neoadjuvant patients counts events occurring before the operation¹. Their survival columns also differ in what they were able to establish, and follow-up does not explain it, because the trial with the shorter median follow-up is the one whose survival difference reached significance. The reasons to hold that survival result loosely are specific. CITRINE was conducted at a single centre. Its proportional hazards assumption was formally rejected³. A single hazard ratio therefore does not describe its curves, which is a statement about the model rather than about the drug. Whether carboplatin prevented recurrence or deferred it cannot be told apart at this length of follow-up.

The second question is whether platinum can replace the anthracycline. PATTERN replaced an anthracycline regimen with a platinum and taxane doublet, changing both drugs at once¹². A comparison in which the experimental arm differs from the control in two components cannot attribute its result to either one. Its subgroups with BRCA1/2 and homologous recombination repair variants are the most quoted part of it and were not randomised allocations.

The third question is whether platinum is the right drug for residual disease. EA1131 tested platinum against capecitabine in that population as a non-inferiority design, and its monitoring committee closed it after roughly three fifths of the planned information had accrued⁷. A non-inferiority trial closed that early can demonstrate neither non-inferiority nor inferiority. Two features of it are nevertheless load-bearing. The analysis population was defined by a PAM50 call made on residual tissue, which is a measurement taken after the selection event rather than a property of the tumour that was enrolled. And the design assumed a four-year invasive disease-free survival of 67% with capecitabine, while the observed three-year estimates in basal residual disease fell far below that in both arms. Residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a worse prognostic state than the trials that study it have assumed.

The decision for a patient going to surgery first therefore rests on CITRINE, because it is the only trial here that randomised the addition of carboplatin entirely after surgery. That is a single-centre trial with non-proportional hazards, which is a thinner foundation than the strength of its primary result suggests.

Two comparisons nobody has randomised bound all of this. No trial has added carboplatin after surgery to a patient who already received carboplatin before it. And no trial in this setting has allocated platinum prospectively by homologous recombination status, so the mechanistic rationale for the class has never been tested as an eligibility criterion.

4 · Capecitabine for residual disease

One finding runs through this table and it is narrower than the way the drug is discussed. Where capecitabine was added to standard treatment rather than substituted for it, the disease-free survival estimate favoured the drug in every trial. Where it replaced standard chemotherapy, it was inferior. Addition and substitution are different questions, and only the first of them has a positive answer.

CREATE-X is the trial the decision rests on, because it is the only randomised comparison against what the clinic would otherwise do, which was nothing further¹⁶. Three qualifications travel with it. Its population was HER2-negative rather than triple-negative, so the result that changed practice is a subgroup of the trial rather than the trial. It stopped early at an interim analysis that had met its endpoint, which is the circumstance in which an effect is most likely to be overstated. And its control arm received neither carboplatin nor pembrolizumab at any point, so the residual disease it selected was selected by a weaker regimen than the one used today. The incremental value of capecitabine after a platinum-containing chemoimmunotherapy backbone has never been measured.

The two trials that gave capecitabine to unselected early triple-negative disease reached opposite conclusions. They differ in dose, in schedule and in duration rather than in drug. CIBOMA/GEICAM gave eight conventional cycles¹¹. SYSUCC-001 gave a year of continuous low-dose treatment¹⁰. Their confidence intervals for disease-free survival overlap across most of their range, so what separates the two conclusions is which side of a threshold each interval fell on. Neither trial is evidence that metronomic dosing works where conventional dosing does not. That comparison has never been randomised.

CALGB 49907 is in this table for the opposite reason. It substituted capecitabine for standard adjuvant chemotherapy in patients aged 65 and over, and standard chemotherapy won¹³. Its receptor-negative result is a subgroup of an age-selected, subtype-blind trial. It nevertheless does the most useful work in the table, because it fixes the direction of the whole class. Capecitabine is worth giving after an anthracycline and a taxane when residual invasive disease is found at surgery. It is not worth giving instead of standard chemotherapy. In CALGB 49907 that meant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil, or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, neither of which contains a taxane.

EA1131 appears here as the comparator rather than as an experimental arm. Its presence records the point at which capecitabine stopped being the new idea and became the thing to beat, which is also the role it plays in the conjugate trials in Conjugates after residual disease.

The preplanned subgroup signals in this table point in opposite directions, and the reason is measurement rather than biology. CIBOMA/GEICAM reported its advantage in non-basal disease, on a phenotype scored centrally by immunohistochemistry. That interaction reached significance for overall survival and not for disease-free survival¹¹. CREATE-X reported its largest effect in the triple-negative subgroup, defined by receptor status¹⁶. Those two partitions do not divide the same patients along the same line. Neither was a randomised allocation, and an interaction test on a scoring convention is not a claim about repair biology.

5 · Adjuvant PARP inhibition for germline carriers

OlympiA enrolled germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with high-risk HER2-negative disease, so its population includes hormone receptor positive patients⁹. Entry ran through two different routes. Patients treated with surgery first qualified on pathological stage. Patients treated before surgery qualified on residual disease. For a triple-negative patient the second route is usually the relevant one, which makes germline status and response status jointly determine the post-neoadjuvant plan.

Follow-up is now long enough for the survival result to stand on its own^28,29. That is unusual in this space and it is the reason olaparib rather than capecitabine is offered to a carrier.

Two observations belong in the consent conversation and neither is in the table. The separation was in distant disease-free survival as well as in invasive disease-free survival, at 87.5% against 80.4% at three years⁹. The effect is therefore not carried by second primaries and non-breast events. And olaparib was added after chemotherapy rather than in place of it, so a carrier who declines chemotherapy sits outside this evidence entirely.

Three things that trial does not establish should be said out loud.

It never compared olaparib with capecitabine, which is the alternative in this population. The preference rests on a larger population, a longer follow-up and a placebo control. Those are reasons to prefer the evidence rather than evidence of superiority.

It did not test olaparib alongside pembrolizumab in any arm. A patient with residual disease after KEYNOTE-522 who carries a germline variant is now routinely offered both, on the strength of two trials that each excluded the other drug.

It enrolled on germline status alone, with no somatic or functional assay. Somatic BRCA alterations, PALB2 and the wider homologous recombination gene set were not eligibility criteria. The distinction between a germline mutation, a somatic one and a genomic scar is developed in Germline and somatic DNA repair alterations and DNA repair, replication stress, and genomic instability.

6 · Adjuvant immunotherapy and the question stratified by response

Two of the five trials in this table have reported and neither met its primary endpoint. Two of the other three are conjugate trials, and they appear here because pembrolizumab now sits inside their control arms. That is the shape of the problem. The adjuvant checkpoint phase moved from hypothesis to fixture without any trial testing it on its own.

Checkpoint blockade begun after surgery has not lowered recurrence in any trial that tested it. That is the class finding, and the failures behind it are not the same kind of failure. ALEXANDRA/IMpassion030 enrolled patients treated by surgery first, added atezolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy, and was halted for futility with its estimate on the wrong side of no difference⁴. A-BRAVE gave a year of avelumab after all treatment was finished, to a population that was mostly residual disease, and missed both co-primary endpoints². Outside this table, NSABP B-59/GeparDouze started atezolizumab before surgery, with carboplatin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and continued it afterwards. It missed its primary endpoint too. As a neoadjuvant trial, it does not test blockade begun after surgery.

Those are two antibodies on three backbones in three populations. They are not replicates of one another. A negative result with one PD-L1 antibody on one chemotherapy schedule does not transfer to another. What does generalise is the timing. Before surgery the antigen and the infiltrating lymphocytes are still in the breast. Afterwards they are not, and Why response rates in breast cancer sit where they do develops that mechanism.

ALEXANDRA/IMpassion030 is the load-bearing trial for exactly that reason. It is the only randomised test of a checkpoint inhibitor added to adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with no neoadjuvant exposure at all. Nothing in its design confounds the drug with a pre-surgical phase, which is why its futility result is the cleanest available statement that the timing matters.

A-BRAVE is the harder of the two to read. Its descriptive overall survival hazard ratio is more favourable than its disease-free survival hazard ratio, and it is widely quoted as though the trial were positive². A trial whose disease-free survival curves do not separate convincingly should not show a larger separation in overall survival. That analysis sat outside the testing hierarchy and the trial was not powered for it. It is a hypothesis rather than a result recovered from a negative trial. The trial should also be read as post-neoadjuvant rather than adjuvant, because the great majority of its patients entered through the residual disease stratum.

The question in the heading is the one none of them asked. KEYNOTE-522 gave pembrolizumab before and after surgery, to every patient, inside a single randomisation²⁷. It cannot apportion its effect between the two phases. GeparNuevo gave no checkpoint blockade after surgery at all. It missed its pathological complete response endpoint. Its later reports carry an overall survival difference in favour of durvalumab^30,31. That is an indirect argument that the adjuvant phase may be contributing little. It is also a secondary survival endpoint from a randomised phase II trial, which is the grade of evidence this section has just declined to accept from A-BRAVE.

OptimICE-pCR tests omission after a pathological complete response, which is the half of the question with the least at stake. ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD and TROPION-Breast03 will not settle the other half. ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD gives pembrolizumab in its experimental arm and in its control arm. TROPION-Breast03 pairs its conjugate with durvalumab and leaves pembrolizumab inside the choice from which its control arm is drawn. Both ask what to add to the post-surgical phase rather than whether a checkpoint inhibitor belongs in it. No randomised study is asking whether pembrolizumab should be continued in residual disease after a pembrolizumab-containing neoadjuvant regimen, which is where the recurrence risk actually sits.

7 · Conjugates after residual disease

Residual disease is the enrichment that makes a post-surgical trial of an expensive drug feasible. The event rate is high enough to power an invasive disease-free survival endpoint in a trial of feasible size. That is the design logic established in HER2-positive disease by KATHERINE and developed in Post-neoadjuvant intensification for residual disease.

None of these three has reported, so what is on the record is design and rationale. They agree on most of it. All three randomise residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All three test a conjugate directed at Trop-2 and carrying a topoisomerase-I payload. All three set a choice of treatment as the comparator rather than a fixed regimen.

Where they differ is the choice they offer the control arm, and that is the difference that will decide how each result reads. ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD offers pembrolizumab with or without capecitabine⁵. TROPION-Breast03 offers capecitabine, pembrolizumab or both⁶. SASCIA / GBG 102 spans hormone receptor positive and triple-negative cohorts, which have to be read separately, because the two differ in biology and in what a physician's choice is likely to contain. The gap between pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with capecitabine is not small. A conjugate that beats the weaker of those options has not beaten current practice everywhere, and the comparator will drift as practice drifts.

TROPION-Breast03 is the one to watch for a reason unconnected to its drug. It randomises the conjugate alone as well as the conjugate with durvalumab, so it is the only trial of the three that can separate the conjugate from the antibody it is given with⁶. Without that arm a positive result belongs to a combination rather than to a class.

NeoSTAR sits outside this table and is the reason the class was brought here at all. A single-arm neoadjuvant study showing that a conjugate alone produces pathological responses in untreated disease is a proof of concept, not a comparison. Its patients had received nothing, and their subsequent systemic treatment was left to the treating physician, so its later outcomes describe a pathway rather than a drug. A design paper and a single-arm response rate are the two things in this field most often cited as though they were efficacy results.

Transfer from the metastatic setting is not automatic either. The populations in which these drugs established themselves had measurable, pretreated, progressing disease The biomarker triage, and what is left when it finds nothing. Residual disease is chemotherapy-selected, micrometastatic and invisible to imaging. None of these three trials requires Trop-2 expression for entry, and the metastatic trials did not require it either, so nothing is known about whether antigen abundance in a residual disease specimen predicts anything.

Toxicity carries a different weight in a population treated with curative intent. Neutropenia and diarrhoea with sacituzumab govitecan and interstitial lung disease with datopotamab deruxtecan are manageable risks in advanced disease Antibody-drug conjugates and targeted delivery. A treatment-related death in a patient who was going to be cured is a different event.

8 · Unresolved questions and what reads out next

OptimICE-pCR asks whether the adjuvant pembrolizumab phase can be dropped after a pathological complete response. A result showing no loss from omission would take the adjuvant phase and its permanent endocrine risk away from the majority of treated patients. An inferiority result would establish that the adjuvant phase carries effect, which no trial has yet shown.

ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD and TROPION-Breast03 ask whether a Trop-2 directed conjugate beats the current post-neoadjuvant standard^5,6. SASCIA / GBG 102 asks the same question across both HER2-negative subtypes, which makes it the only one of the three whose triple-negative result will arrive alongside a hormone receptor positive comparison in the same protocol. A positive result in any of them would displace capecitabine from the post-neoadjuvant standard. None would tell you what to do for a germline carrier, because olaparib is not the comparator in any arm.

Four questions have no trial running and should be named as such.

Whether capecitabine adds anything after a platinum-containing chemoimmunotherapy backbone is unmeasured, because the regimen it was tested against no longer exists.

Whether olaparib is better than capecitabine in a germline carrier has never been asked directly.

Whether pembrolizumab should be continued in residual disease after a pembrolizumab-containing neoadjuvant regimen is the highest-risk group's open question. It is currently answered by convention rather than by evidence.

Whether any systemic treatment helps stage I triple-negative disease remains an extrapolation Risk assessment and treatment selection.

Molecular residual disease detection would in principle identify who needs escalation here. Whether acting on a positive result changes outcome is a separate question, with the trials that address it collected in Liquid biopsy and longitudinal monitoring.

References

All 31 references

1. Kim GM, Jung KH, Jeung HC, et al. A randomized phase III trial of anthracyclines followed by taxane versus taxane plus carboplatin as (neo)adjuvant therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer - KCSG BR 15-1 PEARLY trial. Ann Oncol 2026. PMID 42218963
2. Conte PF, Dieci MV, Bisagni G, et al. A-BRAVE trial - a phase III randomized trial with anti-PD-L1 avelumab in high-risk triple-negative early breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2025 36:1492-1502. PMID 40885530
3. Liu Y, Gong Y, Zhu XZ, et al. Effect of adjuvant carboplatin intensified chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy on survival in women with high risk, early stage, triple negative breast cancer (CITRINE) - randomised, open label phase 3 trial. BMJ 2025 391:e085457. PMID 41436191
4. Ignatiadis M, Bailey A, McArthur H, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer: the ALEXANDRA/IMpassion030 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2025 333:1150-1160. PMID 39883436
5. Tolaney SM, DeMichele A, Takano T, et al. OptimICE-RD - sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab vs pembrolizumab (with or without capecitabine) for residual triple-negative breast cancer. Future Oncol 2024 20:2343-2355. PMID 38922307
6. Bardia A, Pusztai L, Albain K, et al. TROPION-Breast03 - a randomized phase III global trial of datopotamab deruxtecan with or without durvalumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer and residual invasive disease at surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2024 16:17588359241248336. PMID 38686016
7. Mayer IA, Zhao F, Arteaga CL, et al. Randomized phase III postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy versus capecitabine in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy - ECOG-ACRIN EA1131. J Clin Oncol 2021 39:2539-2551. PMID 34092112
8. Piccart M, van 't Veer LJ, Poncet C, et al. 70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age. Lancet Oncol 2021 22:476-488. PMID 33721561
9. Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B, et al. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2021 384:2394-2405. PMID 34081848
10. Wang X, Wang SS, Huang H, et al. Effect of capecitabine maintenance therapy using lower dosage and higher frequency vs observation on disease-free survival among patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who had received standard treatment - the SYSUCC-001 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021 325:50-58. PMID 33300950
11. Lluch A, Barrios CH, Torrecillas L, et al. Phase III trial of adjuvant capecitabine after standard neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01). J Clin Oncol 2020 38:203-213. PMID 31804894
12. Yu KD, Ye FG, He M, et al. Effect of adjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin on survival in women with triple-negative breast cancer - a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020 6:1390-1396. PMID 32789480
13. Muss HB, Polley MC, Berry DA, et al. Randomized Trial of Standard Adjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens Versus Capecitabine in Older Women With Early Breast Cancer: 10-Year Update of the CALGB 49907 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2019 37:2338-2348. PMID 31339827
14. Nitz U, et al. West German Study PlanB Trial: Adjuvant Four Cycles of Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide Plus Docetaxel Versus Six Cycles of Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide in HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019 37:799-808. PMID 30785826
15. Blum JL, 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 35:2647-2655. PMID 28398846
16. Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2017 376:2147-2159. PMID 28564564
17. Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, et al. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer - an open-label, 2 x 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2015 385:1863-1872. PMID 25740286
18. Jones S, et al. Docetaxel With Cyclophosphamide Is Associated With an Overall Survival Benefit Compared With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide: 7-Year Follow-Up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 2009 27:1177-83. PMID 19204201
19. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008 358:1663-1671. PMID 18420499
20. Mamounas EP, et al. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol 2005 23:3686-96. PMID 15897552
21. Henderson IC, et al. Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating Doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003 21:976-83. PMID 12637460
22. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 2003 21:1431-1439. PMID 12668651
23. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Peto R, Davies C, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012 379:432-444. PMID 22152853
24. Geyer CE, et al. Long-Term Follow-Up of the Anthracyclines in Early Breast Cancer Trials (USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 [NRG Oncology]). J Clin Oncol 2024 42:1344-1349. PMID 38335467
25. Nitz U, et al. Reducing chemotherapy use in clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk pN0 and pN1 early breast cancer patients: five-year data from the prospective, randomised phase 3 West German Study Group (WSG) PlanB trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017 165:573-583. PMID 28664507
26. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy by more frequent administration or sequential scheduling: a patient-level meta-analysis of 37 298 women with early breast cancer in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 2019 393:1440-1452. PMID 30739743
27. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2020 382:810-821. PMID 32101663
28. Geyer CE, et al. Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2022 33:1250-1268. PMID 36228963
29. Garber JE, Cameron D, Campbell C, et al. Sustained benefit of adjuvant olaparib in women with germline BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer: updated results from the OlympiA phase III trial. Ann Oncol 2026. PMID 42636977
30. Loibl S, Schneeweiss A, Huober J, et al. Neoadjuvant durvalumab improves survival in early triple-negative breast cancer independent of pathological complete response. Ann Oncol 2022 33:1149-1158. PMID 35961599
31. Loibl S, Untch M, Huober J, et al. Durvalumab in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: long-term analysis from the GeparNuevo trial. J Clin Oncol 2026 44:1580-1586. PMID 42008768