Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · September 16, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.