Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Early Breast cancer

SUMMARY: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US and about 1 in 8 women (12%) will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. The American Cancer Society estimates that in the US, approximately 310,720 new cases of female breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2024, and about 42,250 individuals will die of the disease, largely due to metastatic recurrence.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is commonly used for patients with locally advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer. Alongside this standard treatment, there has been a push to develop new strategies aimed at increasing pathologic Complete Response (pCR) rates and improving survival outcomes. The introduction of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) marked a major shift in cancer treatment, initially proving effective in melanoma and later showing promise in metastatic TNBC. This success led researchers to test ICIs in early-stage breast cancer as well.

Multiple randomized clinical trials have studied the impact of combining ICIs with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, some continuing ICI therapy as adjuvant treatment. These trials have gone beyond TNBC, exploring their use in other breast cancer subtypes like HER2-positive and Hormone Receptor-positive (HR-positive)/HER2-negative cancers. While some trials achieved their goals, the best way to integrate ICIs into early treatment remains debated, with concerns about cost and safety still under discussion.

In response to the need for clarity, a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI therapy combined with chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer. The analysis reviewed randomized controlled trials retrieved from the PubMed database up until December 2023. These trials focused on comparing ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with early-stage breast cancer. The meta-analysis included 5114 patients from nine randomized controlled trials. These patients were subdivided into three major subgroupsTNBC (N=2097) patients, HR-positive/HER2-negative (N=1924) patients, and HER2-positive (N=1115) patients. The Primary outcomes evaluated were pathologic Complete Response (pCR) and Event-Free Survival (EFS) stratified by molecular phenotype and PD-L1 status. Secondary outcomes included incidence of Adverse Events (AEs), with a focus on immune-related toxicities.
The following are the Key Findings:
Pathologic Complete Response (pCR):
Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Neoadjuvant ICIs improved the pCR rate significantly, with an increase from 46.6% to 59.9% (absolute improvement of 13.3%), regardless of PD-L1 status.
Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Tumors: There was a significant benefit of ICIs in PD-L1-positive tumors. The pCR rate increased from 14.8% to 24.6% in these cases (absolute improvement of 9.8%). However, there was no significant benefit in PD-L1-negative HR-positive/HER2-negative patients.
HER2-Positive Tumors: No significant pCR improvement was observed with the addition of ICIs in this subtype.

Event-Free Survival (EFS):
TNBC Patients with pCR: For those with TNBC who achieved a pCR, ICIs improved EFS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.42–1.00). The 5-year EFS was 92.0% for patients treated with ICIs compared to 88.0% without ICIs.
TNBC Patients with Residual Disease: ICIs also showed better EFS (HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.98) in patients who had residual disease after treatment, with a 5-year EFS of 63.3% compared to 56.1% without ICIs.
Adjuvant ICI in TNBC: No additional survival benefit was found with the use of adjuvant ICIs (after surgery) in TNBC patients, regardless of whether they achieved pCR or had residual disease.

Safety Profile:
Adverse Events (AEs): During neoadjuvant treatment, grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events (AEs) were observed in 10.3% of patients treated with ICIs. The overall incidence of severe AEs (grade 3 or worse) was higher in ICI-treated patients (63.6%) compared to chemotherapy alone (54.1%). This reflects the toxicity costs associated with ICIs

Implications:
Neoadjuvant vs. Adjuvant ICI: The findings suggest that ICIs have greater efficacy when used in the neoadjuvant setting compared to adjuvant treatment. This is likely due to the tumor presence during neoadjuvant therapy, which allows for immune system priming through exposure to tumor antigens.
PD-L1 as a Biomarker: PD-L1 expression appears to be a more reliable biomarker of response to ICIs in HR-positive/HER2-negative tumors than in TNBC, where ICI benefit seems independent of PD-L1 status.
TNBC and Residual Disease: In patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, the benefit of continuing ICIs in the adjuvant setting is limited. This raises the question of whether continuing ICIs postoperatively is necessary or whether alternative strategies, like the use of other novel therapies, may be more effective.

In conclusion, Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors improve pathologic Complete Response rates and Event-Free Survival in early-stage breast cancer, especially in TNBC and PD-L1-positive HR-positive/HER2-negative tumors. However, their use in the adjuvant setting does not appear to provide added benefit. Ongoing trials, like the OptimICE-PCR trial, are designed to answer this question definitively by randomizing patients who achieve pCR to either continued ICI therapy or observation. For patients with residual disease post-neoadjuvant therapy, novel treatment approaches like Antibody-Drug Conjugates such as Sacituzumab Govitecan combined with ICIs are being investigated, offering potential new treatment paradigms.

Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Villacampa G, Navarro V, Matikas A, et al. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10(10):1331-1341. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.3456.