Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41848921›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026

Treatment patterns and safety of adjuvant therapy after chemoimmunotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: real-world data from the Neo-Real/GBECAM 0123 study.

Matheus de Oliveira Andrade, Renata Colombo Bonadio, Agustina Ipiña, Laura Testa, Monique Celeste Tavares, Flávia Cavalcanti Balint, Carlos Henrique Dos Anjos, Débora de Melo Gagliato, Mayana Lopes de Brito, Melina Winocur and 24 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

34 authors.

Matheus de Oliveira AndradeHospital Brasília - Américas Oncologia, Brasília, Brazil.
Renata Colombo BonadioGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Agustina IpiñaSUMA (Grupo Cooperativa Argentino Para El Estudio y La Investigación del Cáncer de Mama), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Laura TestaInstituto D'Or de Pesquisa E Ensino (IDOR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Monique Celeste TavaresA.C.Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
Flávia Cavalcanti BalintA.C.Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos Henrique Dos AnjosGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Débora de Melo GagliatoGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Mayana Lopes de BritoGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Melina WinocurSUMA (Grupo Cooperativa Argentino Para El Estudio y La Investigación del Cáncer de Mama), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Daniele Assad-SuzukiGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniela Dornelles RosaGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Noele de Jesus Barros GomesHospital São Domingos, São Luís, Brazil.
Natalia Cristina Cardoso NunesInstituto Américas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Isadora Martins de SousaA.C.Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mariana Carvalho GouveiaHospital 9 de Julho (Américas Oncologia), São Paulo, Brazil.
Fernanda MadasiInstituto D'Or de Pesquisa E Ensino (IDOR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Jose BinesGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos GallinaSUMA (Grupo Cooperativa Argentino Para El Estudio y La Investigación del Cáncer de Mama), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rafael Dal Ponte FerreiraHospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Candice Lima SantosInstituto D'Or de Pesquisa E Ensino (IDOR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Maira TavaresInstituto D'Or de Pesquisa E Ensino (IDOR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mariana Ribeiro MonteiroHospital Samaritano (Américas Oncologia), São Paulo, Brazil.
Zenaide Silva de SouzaHospital Sírio-Libanês, Brasília, Brazil.
Ana Maria Ulbricht GomesHospital Beneficência Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bruna M ZucchettiGrupo Brasileiro de Estudos Em Câncer de Mama (GBECAM), São Paulo, Brazil.
Anezka FerrariHospital Santa Paula (Américas Oncologia), São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria Marcela Fernandes MonteiroInstituto do Câncer do Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Poliana Albuquerque SignoriniCentro Integrado de Pesquisa da Amazônia (CINPAM), Manaus, Brazil.
Solange SanchesA.C.Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paulo M HoffInstituto D'Or de Pesquisa E Ensino (IDOR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Gimena FerreiraSUMA (Grupo Cooperativa Argentino Para El Estudio y La Investigación del Cáncer de Mama), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Maria Del Pilar Estevez-DizInstituto D'Or de Pesquisa E Ensino (IDOR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Romualdo Barroso-SousaHospital Brasília - Américas Oncologia, Brasília, Brazil. romualdo.sousa.ext@americasmed.com.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-9876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the KEYNOTE-522 trial established neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (CT), followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab, as the standard of care. Nevertheless, uncertainties remain on how to integrate this regimen with other adjuvant therapies such as capecitabine or olaparib. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns and safety of adjuvant therapies following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

methodsThe Neo-Real study includes patients with TNBC treated with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus CT in Brazil and Argentina. This study describes real-world adjuvant treatment patterns and safety; survival outcomes are not reported in this analysis.

resultsAmong 726 patients included, 692 underwent surgery, and 62.9% achieved pathologic complete response (pCR). Of those with pCR, 84.8% received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone, while 14.3% received no adjuvant therapy. Among patients with residual disease and no germline BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 207), 57.5% received pembrolizumab plus capecitabine, 26.1% pembrolizumab alone, and 12.6% capecitabine alone. In BRCA1/2-mutated patients (n = 26), 57.7% received pembrolizumab plus olaparib, 19.2% pembrolizumab alone, and 11.5% olaparib alone. Safety data were available for 359 patients. Adjuvant pembrolizumab alone caused a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs (6.7%) compared with combination regimens (P = 0.002). Drug discontinuation due to toxicity occurred in 5.7%, 11.2%, and 7.7% of patients receiving pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab + capecitabine, and pembrolizumab + olaparib, respectively (P = 0.126).

conclusionMost patients with pCR continued adjuvant pembrolizumab, while combination strategies predominated among those with residual disease and were associated with higher rates of grade ≥ 3 AEs. The efficacy of these combined regimens remains to be determined.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAdultAgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCapecitabineChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansImmunotherapyMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPathologic Complete ResponseTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCapecitabinepembrolizumabAdjuvant therapyImmunotherapyReal-world evidenceTriple-negative breast cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.