ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
UK real-world evidence on pembrolizumab and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- BRCA pathogenic variants and response in early TNBC patients treated with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab: outcomes of the BRCAPATH study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Real-World Toxicities and Outcomes of Pembrolizumab in Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Pathological Complete Response and Safety of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab-Based Chemoimmunotherapy in Triple-Negative and Hormone Receptor-Low Breast Cancer: A Real-World Cohort Study.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The KEYNOTE-522 trial showed that use of pembrolizumab-chemotherapy for stage 2-3 triple-negative breast cancer improved pathological complete response (pCR) rates and event-free and overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone. This retrospective multicentre cohort study collated real-world-evidence (RWE) of the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab-chemotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients treated with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy who completed pembrolizumab treatment before 1 July 2024 were included in the study. Data were collected on safety and efficacy of treatment. pCR rates were compared between subgroups using chi-square and tests for trend (where appropriate), no adjustment was made for multiplicity. Results: Five hundred and forty-five patients were recruited from 34 UK centres (median age 50 years, range 21-79 years). Neoadjuvant treatment delays and discontinuations were reported by 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 55% to 63%] and 47% (95% CI 42% to 51%) respectively. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were experienced by 65% (95% CI 61% to 69%); 20% of patients (95% CI 16% to 23%) experienced grade ≥3 irAEs. A total of 83% (95% CI 80% to 86%) and 45% (95% CI 41% to 50%) of patients had unplanned medical contacts and admissions. pCR rate was 56% (95% CI 52% to 60%). IrAEs were associated with increased pCR rates, but steroid use and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy discontinuation did not adversely affect rates of pCR. Conclusions: This large, national RWE study demonstrates pCR rate was lower compared with that observed in KEYNOTE-522. High rates of dose reductions, discontinuations and unplanned medical contacts (with significant health care resource use) suggests that patient selection is important for this regimen. Collection of long-term outcomes will be important to better evaluate the benefit/risks of pembrolizumab, especially in certain subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.