Retrospective cohort study finds comparable response and survival across treatment intensities in small node-negative triple-negative breast cancer, suggesting need for risk-adapted therapy.
Introduction Multi-agent neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) with immune checkpoint blockade is standard treatment for Stage II–III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), though its role in smaller node-negative tumors remains unclear. Methods We performed a retrospective multi-institutional cohort study evaluating demographics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a contemporary “small TNBC” population (n = 215) comprising Stage I (n = 154) and Stage II, T < 3 cm TNBC (n = 61). Results Within the small TNBC cohort, Stage II, < 3 cm tumors demonstrated higher rates of grade 3 histology (93.4% vs 74.7%, p = 0.0013), NAT (85.2% vs 61.0%, p = 0.0006), adjuvant pembrolizumab (56.8% vs 24.7%, adjusted p = 0.0024), and neoadjuvant KEYNOTE-522 (75.0% vs 45.7%, adjusted p = 0.0052) compared with Stage I disease. Despite these treatment differences, recurrence and mortality rates were similar between groups. Among NAT-treated patients with small TNBC (n = 146), the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 51.3% (75/146), without significant difference between Stage I and Stage II, < 3 cm tumors (51.1% vs 51.9%, p = 0.92). There were no significant differences in regimen-specific pCR rates or event-free survival (EFS) when comparing NAT between Stage I and Stage II, < 3 cm tumors, or comparing NAT vs. no NAT for the small TNBC cohort. Conclusions Stage I and Stage II, < 3 cm TNBC demonstrated overlapping clinicopathologic features, pCR rates, and short-term survival outcomes despite substantially different treatment approaches. These findings suggest that current stage-based treatment distinctions may not fully capture the clinical behavior of small TNBC and support further prospective evaluation of risk-adapted and size-based treatment frameworks to better individualize NAT selection in this understudied population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: