Triple‑negative breast cancer: A run‑through of features, classification and current therapies (Review)

Manjunath,Meghana; Choudhary,Bibha

doi:10.3892/ol.2021.12773

Triple‑negative breast cancer: A run‑through of features, classification and current therapies (Review)

Authors:
- Meghana Manjunath
- Bibha Choudhary
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100, India
Published online on: May 5, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2021.12773
Article Number: 512
Copyright : © Manjunath et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY 4.0].

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women worldwide. Triple‑negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the lack of expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. It is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer and accounts for 12‑20% of all breast cancer cases. TNBC is associated with younger age of onset, greater metastatic potential, higher incidence of relapse, and lower overall survival rates. Based on molecular phenotype, TNBC has been classified into six subtypes (BL1, BL2, M, MES, LAR, and IM). TNBC treatment is challenging due to its heterogeneity, highly invasive nature, and relatively poor therapeutics response. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are conventional strategies for the treatment of TNBC. Recent research in TNBC and mechanistic understanding of disease pathogenesis using cutting‑edge technologies has led to the unfolding of new lines of therapies that have been incorporated into clinical practice. Poly (ADP‑ribose) polymerase and immune checkpoint inhibitors have made their way to the current TNBC treatment paradigm. This review focuses on the classification, features, and treatment progress in TNBC. Histological subtypes connected to recurrence, molecular classification of TNBC, targeted therapy for early and advanced TNBC, and advances in non‑coding RNA in therapy are the key highlights in this review.

Introduction

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with varying biological and clinical characteristics. It is the most common cancer among women worldwide, accounting for 25% of all cancer cases (1). According to GLOBOCAN 2020, the incidence and mortality of breast cancer reported worldwide were 34,65,951 new cases and 11,21,413 deaths, respectively; in India, 1,204,532 new cases and 436,417 deaths were recorded in 2020 (2).

Immunohistochemical analysis of breast tumors is the gold-standard method used in clinics to classify them based on the hormone receptor expression for improved therapeutic decisions. Based on this, breast cancer can be broadly grouped into five types, namely: i) Progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and human epidermal growth factor 2 (Her2)-negative (luminal A); ii) ER-positive, PR-positive/negative and Her2-positive (luminal B); iii) Her2-overexpressing, ER- and PR-negative; iv) ER-, PR- and Her2-negative (basal-like or triple-negative), and v) normal-like (expression status similar to luminal A and resemble normal breast profile) (3–5). Additionally, molecular breast cancer analysis identified a distinctive phenotype with low claudin expression, immune receptor, and EMT markers expression (6). Cancer types with the claudinlow phenotype are highly metastatic and associated with poor prognosis (7). Her2-overexpressing cancer also displays high metastasis and poor prognosis (8). Among ER-positive subtypes, luminal B is associated with a significantly worse prognosis than luminal A (9,10). Patients with basal subtypes of cancer with BRCA1 mutations have a poor prognosis (9).

Based on specific gene expression patterns, breast cancers are categorized into five intrinsic or molecular subtypes. Among the intrinsic subtypes, basal-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 12–20% of breast cancers (11). TNBC has drawn specific attention due to the lack of expression of all three receptors (ER, PR, and Her2). Thus, it cannot be treated using anti-estrogen hormonal therapies or trastuzumab (12). Morphologically, TNBC is characterized by hyperdense masses without calcification, usually occurring in women <50 years of age. Histological features include significant lymphocyte infiltration, central necrosis, pushing tumor borders, and fibrosis (13). Cytokeratins, fascin, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), caveolin, and vimentin are usually expressed in basal-like TNBC (14,15). TNBC is challenging to treat, as it is quite complex due to poor cell differentiation, molecular heterogeneity, and rapid metastasis, often leading to chemoresistance and recurrence of the disease (16). Fast relapse and invasions are common features of TNBC tumors and show poor prognosis (17). Recent advances in omics technologies have provided insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying TNBC (18). The present review focuses on the different subtypes of TNBC and therapeutic approaches currently employed in the treatment of TNBC.

Histology-guided classification of TNBC

Histologically, most TNBC is categorized as no special type (IDC-NST) (17). Most IDC is characterized by pleomorphic cells with prominent nucleoli. The cells are organized into diffuse sheets, cords, nests with ductal differentiation. The rest of the tumors are categorized into 47 specific subtypes, such as invasive lobular carcinoma (relatively common), metaplastic carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, secretory carcinoma, acinic cell carcinoma, neuroendocrine tumors, as well as the rarest glycogen-rich clear cell carcinoma (19,20).

Among these specific subtypes (Fig. 1), medullary breast carcinoma occurs in <1% of patients and shows distinctive features, such as high lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, overexpression of BCLG (a pro-apoptotic gene); it bears more losses of heterozygosity than other subtypes and is immunomodulatory (21,22). It is associated with better outcomes compared with other TNBC subtypes (22). Metaplastic carcinoma presents unique pathologic features, where the glandular component may be partially or completely replaced by a non-glandular component(s), and based on their differentiation status further divided into i) Squamous type, tumor with keratinization and squamous differentiation; ii) matrix-producing type, tumor with more cells in the periphery; iii) mixed type, tumor showing both squamous differentiation and large high-grade cells with pleomorphic nuclei; and iv) spindle-cell type, tumor with storiform-like spindle cells. These metaplastic tumors harbor mutations in the PIK3CA, Wnt (Wingless-Type MMTV Integration Site Family) signaling pathway genes and display a unique copy number alteration pattern (23–25). Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is characterized by the presence of dividing epithelial cells and myoepithelial cells producing mucinous membrane. ACC occurs in 0.1% of patients with basal-like features (26,27) and expresses markers, such as cytokeratin 5, −5/6, −14 and −17 (28). Secretory carcinoma is characterized by microcystic, solid and tubular architecture and presence of vacuolated tumor cells producing intracellular and extracellular secretions. It occurs in <1% of the patients and is referred to as juvenile carcinoma, as it is common in adolescents and often reported to have favorable outcomes. It is also characterized by ETV6-NTRK3 fusion (29–31). The rarest among all the subtypes is glycogen-rich clear cell carcinoma, in which the tumors appear in sheets and cells are polygonal in shape, with a clear cytoplasm and the presence of glycogen (32). In these sheets, there are areas of lymphocytic infiltration and plasma cells.

Figure 1.

Histological classification of TNBC. Among the histological subtypes, invasive ductal carcinoma is the most common. Metaplastic, adenoid cystic, invasive lobular, mucinous and glycogen-rich clear cell carcinoma are rare subtypes of carcinoma. Metaplastic carcinoma can be further divided into matrix-producing, squamous, mixed and spindle-cell type, depending on the cell type (15). The permission to use this figure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License with Elsevier. TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

Among the histological subtypes, adenoid cystic carcinoma has a median recurrence of only 2 months, and metaplastic carcinoma has ~9.9 months (33), compared to IDC-NST and matrix-producing metaplastic carcinoma, which are less aggressive, with 34 and 31.4 months of median time to recurrence, respectively (20).

Although the histological assessments were pointing to the presence of WBCs in and around the TNBC subtypes, focus on the presence of WBCs has led to the identification of TILS and TAMs, which are the parameters defining prognosis and therapy of TNBC. The TNBCs might be immunogenic due to mutations that lead to aberrant protein expression on the cell membrane (34). Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are white blood cells that migrate towards the tumor from the bloodstream via the newly formed blood vessels (angiogenesis), which cancer cells use for their nutritional and oxygen requirements (35). They consist of a mixture of B cells, macrophages, natural killer cells and are dominated by T cells (35). TILs are present in ~20% of TNBC tumors and carry a pivotal prognostic and predictive value (36). The presence of TILs indicates a good prognosis (37). High number of TILs indicate that there is an equilibrium between the immune status and cancer (38). The ratio of cancer cells: TILs is tilted towards TILs after surgical removal of a tumor, resulting in an improved prognosis in TNBC (38). A high mutation load and clonal heterogeneity are associated with a low number of TILs, which may provide an escape route to tumor cells from immune surveillance (39). However, in addition to TILs, the tumor microenvironment components also influence the outcome of patients with TNBC (39). Relapsing patients with TNBC have been shown to have low levels of TILs and a high number of CD163+ tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) compared with that of patients without relapse (39). High levels of CD8+ T cells may reflect improved sensitivity to chemotherapy, whereas high levels of TAMs correlate with poor patient outcomes (36). Nevertheless, a previous study in TNBC has reported paradoxical findings, with high levels of CD8+ T cells in the tumor stroma leading to the low infiltration of the tumor epithelium, thereby indicating a poor outcome (40). Therefore, immunohistological assessment for TILS or TAMS will help develop immunotherapies detailed in section 7.

Multiomics-guided molecular classification of TNBC

Profiling based on gene expression has led to improved insight into tumor heterogeneity at the molecular level and has generated an impartial classification (Fig. 1). The PAM50 microarray set of 50 genes is used to identify breast cancer intrinsic subtypes (41). A set of 374 TNBC samples taken from 14 microarray datasets was analyzed to characterize TNBC subtypes using PAM50. The results from this analysis categorized most of the TNBC as basal-like (80.6%). The rest of the tumours were classified as Her2-positive(0.2%), normal-like (14.6%), luminal B (3.5%) and luminal A (1.1%) (Table I) (41).

Table I.

Molecular classification of triple-negative breast cancer.

Table I.

Molecular classification of triple-negative breast cancer.

First author, year	Country or region	Method	Classification	Features/Pathways enriched	(Refs.)
Perue et al, 2000	Norway and Stanford	Microarray ScanArray 3000; PAM50	Luminal A	Estrogen receptor and transcription factors (GATA, X-box binding proteins, EST downregulation)	(3)
			Luminal B	Estrogen receptor and transcription factors (GATA, X-box binding proteins)
			Her2⁺	ERBB2 and GRB7 overexpression
			Normal-like	Overexpression of adipose tissue and other non-epithelial cell types expressed genes
			Basal-like	Keratin 5 and −17, laminin and fatty acid binding protein 7 overexpression
Lehmann et al, 2014	Sweden, UK, Netherlands, USA, Singapore/Belgium	Affymetrix	Basal-like 1	Cell cycle, DNA replication reactome, RNA polymerase, and	(42)
			Luminal Basal-like 2	EGF pathway, NGF pathway, MET pathway, Wnt/β-catenin, and IGF1R pathway
			Mesenchymal	Cell motility, ECM receptor interaction and cell differentiation pathways
			Mesenchymal stem cell-like	Cell motility, cellular differentiation, growth pathway, inositol phosphate metabolism, EGFR, PDGF, calcium signalling,
			Immunomodulatory subtype	Immune cell signalling cytokine signalling, antigen processing and presentation, and signalling through core immune signal transduction pathways
			Androgen receptor subtype	Steroid synthesis, porphyrin metabolism, and androgen/oestrogen metabolism
Curtis et al, 2012	UK and Canada	Affymetrix; Illumina	Integrative cluster 1	17q23/20q cis-acting	(47)
	(METABRIC)	HT-12 v3 platform	Integrative cluster 2	11q13/14 cis-acting
			Integrative cluster 3	Low genomic instability
			Integrative cluster 4	CNA-devoid
			Integrative cluster 5	ERBB2-amplified
			Integrative cluster 6	8p12 cis-acting
			Integrative cluster 7	16p gain/16q loss, 8q amplification
			Integrative cluster 8	1q gain/16q loss
			Integrative cluster 9	8q cis-acting/20q-amplified
			Integrative cluster 10	cis-acting alterations 5 loss/8q gain/10p gain/12p gain
Burstein et al, 2015	USA and European	Affymetrix	Luminal-AR	androgen receptor, oestrogen receptor, prolactin, and ERBB4 signalling	(43)
			Mesenchymal	cell cycle, mismatch repair and DNA damage networks, and hereditary breast cancer signalling pathways
			Basal-like immune-suppressed	downregulation of B cell, T cell and natural killer cell immune-regulating pathways and cytokine pathways
			Basal-like immune-activated	upregulation of genes controlling B cell, T cell, and natural killer cell function
Liu et al, 2016	China	Affymetrix	Immunomodulatory subtype	Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, T cell receptor signalling pathway, B cell receptor signalling pathway, chemokine signalling pathway	(45)
			Luminal-AR	Steroid hormone biosynthesis, Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism, PPAR signalling pathway, Androgen and oestrogen metabolism
			Mesenchymal	ECM-receptor interaction, Focal adhesion, TGF-β signalling pathway, ABC transporter, Adipocytokine signalling pathway
			Basal-like immune-suppressed	Mitotic cell cycle, Mitotic prometaphase, M phase of mitotic cell cycle, DNA replication, DNA repair

[i] ABC, ATP-binding cassette; GRB2, growth factor receptor bound protein 2; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; ECM, extracellular matrix; CAN, copy number alteration; PPAR, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; EST, expressed sequence tag.

Lehmann et al (42) performed gene expression profiling of 2,188 genes from 587 patients with TNBC and classified TNBC into six new groups, namely, basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), luminal androgen receptor (LAR), mesenchymal stem cell-like (MSL) and mesenchymal (M). The rest was classified as an unstable type (UNS/UNC). Each subtype had its characteristic feature. Basal-like was the most common type of TNBC (BL1, 22%; BL2, 12%) and was characterized by high Ki67 and DNA damage response levels. The IM subtype (18%) had basal-like characteristics with activation of IFNα and IFNγ signaling and high cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 gene expression. Mesenchymal subtypes (M, 21%; MSL, 10%), along with cell differentiation pathways, showed deregulation of EGFR, calcium signaling, MAPK, and PI3K signaling. In the LAR subtype (9%), an ~10-fold increase in androgen receptor (AR) expression was seen, compared with other subtypes. Activation of various pathways, such as steroid synthesis and FOXA1 and ERBB signaling, were observed in this subtype (Table I) (42,43).

Burstein et al (43) used a non-negative matrix factorization method to derive a panel consisting of 80 core genes that divided TNBC into four subtypes, luminal-AR (LAR), mesenchymal (MES), basal-like immune-suppressed (BLIS), and basal-like immune-activated (BLIA). BLIA has the best disease-free survival outcome compared to other subtypes (44). Based on DNA copy number, these subtypes can be placed into two groups, LAR or others (Table I) (31).

Liu et al (45) performed mRNA and long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) expression analysis in 165 TNBC tumor samples at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Centre. The tumor samples were categorized into four subtypes (IM, LAR, MES, and BLIS subtypes), consistent with the classification by Burstein et al (43). The IM subtype comprised of genes related to immune functions such as CCR2, CXCL13, CXCL11, CD1C, CXCL10, and CCL5, along with ENST00000443397 long ncRNA. In contrast, the LAR subtype had enrichment of hormone regulation signaling and ENST00000447908 lncRNA (45). The MES subtype expressed lncRNA NR_003221 together with genes and pathways that promoted epithelial-to-mesenchymal (EMT) transition. Pathways and molecules such as DNA repair, replication, and mitosis, lncRNA TCONS_00000027 were enriched in the BLIS subtype (45,46).

Genomic/transcriptomic data from a set of 997 primary tumors were extracted, and an integrated analysis was performed by Curtis et al (47). A set of 995 tumors from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) cohort was used as a validation set that divided TNBC into ten groups, named Integrated Clusters (IntClust) 1–10 (47). Basal-like breast cancer mostly fell in IntClust 4 and 10 (~80%). IntClust 4 is known to have greater TIL counts, while IntClust 10 subtype can display genomic instability and chromosomal aberrations (Table I) (47–49).

Molecular aberrations in TNBC

Through whole-exome and whole-genome data, it is evident that most of the genetic alterations in TNBC are copy number alterations and somatic mutations (40). The BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumor suppressor genes are required for the maintenance of genomic stability. These genes play a role in DNA repair and replication error control (50,51). A total of 10% of patients with TNBC are known to harbor germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (12,26,27). The lifetime risk of breast cancer becomes 60–70% in the presence of such mutations (52). Gene alterations leading to homologous recombination (HR) defects other than germline BRCA mutations are termed ‘BRCAness’ (53). Moreover, ~35% of TNBC tumors show abnormalities in the HR pathway, making them sensitive to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and DNA-damaging agents (54).

Other common mutations observed in TNBC patients include those in TP53 (50–60%) and PIK3CA (~10%) (18,42). An analysis from the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database revealed that the top genes mutated in TNBC, apart from BRCA1/2, TP53, and PIK3CA, were RB1, PTEN, NOTCH1 and BRAF (Fig. 2A). Among the point mutations observed, 34% of them were nonsense substitutions (where a base change leads to a stop codon in the DNA sequence), 21% were synonymous mutations (where a change in a base in the exon of a coding gene does not change the structure of the protein) (Fig. 2B). The rest of the mutations were missense mutations, frameshift insertion/deletions, and in-frame insertions/deletions. In the metastatic disease setting, genes from HR repair showed a larger frequency of biallelic loss-of-function mutations than in early TNBC (55).

Figure 2.

Mutation status of the top 20 genes in triple-negative breast cancer identified in the Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer. (A) Bar graph showing the number of samples harbouring mutations in the top 20 genes with most mutations. The blue bar indicates samples with mutations, whereas the red bar indicates the total number of samples. The percentage of occurrence of mutation is also shown. TP53, PI3K, BRCA1 are among the top genes in the panel with a high number of mutations. (B) Pie chart classifying the type of mutations observed in all genes. Most of the mutations fall under nonsense and synonymous type. Other mutation types, such as frameshift and in-frame mutations, were also observed.

Integrated analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas (56) has demonstrated deletions in PTEN, DUSP4, and INPP48 involved in the PI3K-AKT pathway. Gene amplifications were seen in MYC, PIK3CA, KRAS, BRAF, FGFR, MET, and EGFR. Mutations in genes, such as ERBB2, AKT1, ATR, MAP3K1, CDKN2A, ATM, and NOTCH2 (18,42,51), were also observed. Based on the mutation signatures obtained from whole-genome sequencing of 560 tumors, TNBC could be classified into four mutation subtypes, namely, APOBEC-based signatures, HR deficiency-based signature (signature 3), Clock-like signatures (signatures 1 and 5), and mixed (no prominent signature) (56,57). These mutations suggest that DNA repair, the PI3K/AKT pathway, cell cycle checkpoints, and Notch signaling are possible druggable pathways in TNBC (58).

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in TNBC

Recently, much focus has been put on bringing liquid biopsies, such as circulating tumor cells (CTC) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), into the clinical setting for diagnostic and prognostic use (59). CTCs are nucleated cancer cells present in the bloodstream that can be detected using techniques, such as reverse transcription-quantitative PCR, flow cytometry, and immunohistochemistry (60). Tumor cells that undergo necrosis or apoptosis release DNA fragments into the plasma are referred to as ctDNA (61). In breast cancer, ctDNA and CTCs have been studied as potential biomarkers for prognosis (60). Stover et al (62) performed studies in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and identified an association between CTCs and ctDNA and tumor burden, indicating that these could be used to measure early-treatment response in patients. A retrospective study in 164 patients with metastatic TNBC revealed that >10% of patients with ctDNA had worse disease-free survival (62). A study by Bidard et al (63), with metastatic breast cancer, revealed that patients with CTC levels >5 per 7.5 ml were associated with lower progression-free survival (PFS) and OS compared with patients who had CTC levels <5 per 7.5 ml. Cristofanilli et al (64) reported that CTC counts could be utilized to classify metastatic patients into two groups. Patients with CTCs levels >5 per 7.5 ml were categorized as aggressive stage IV and those <5 per 7.5 ml as indolent stage IV (64). ctDNA has been associated with chemotherapy in studies by Riva et al (65), in which ctDNA-positive patients before and after chemotherapy experienced poor OS and disease-free survival (DFS). Additionally, Radovich et al (66) reported that patients with early-stage TNBC and positive ctDNA after chemotherapy had a higher risk of disease relapse. Therefore, liquid biopsies are being developed as a non-invasive method to study recurrence, treatment response, and survival in the clinical setting.

Conventional mode of treatment in TNBC

TNBC treatment involves a combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. New methods, such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, have been developed to improve patient survival and prognosis. Lumpectomy and mastectomy are the surgical procedures performed for TNBC patients and are usually followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy (67). Neoadjuvant therapy is given before the surgery, which may help shrink the tumor size and avoid mastectomy (Fig. 3) (61). Taxanes and anthracyclines form the current standard of care for TNBC in both the neoadjuvant and the adjuvant settings. Epirubicin and doxorubicin are the most common anthracyclines (anticancer antibiotics known to disrupt DNA replication and mitochondrial functions to activate apoptosis) (68,69). Taxanes block angiogenesis by inhibiting epidermal growth factor receptor signaling (70).

Figure 3.

Different modes of treatment employed in TNBC therapy. The traditional method of treating cancer (surgery and radiotherapy) is still the primary mode of initial treatment followed by chemotherapy. Taxanes and anthracyclines are common chemotherapeutic agents used for the treatment of TNBC along with platinum salts. Recently, due to the development of omics technology, targeted therapy has become a novel way of treating cancer. AR, androgen receptor; PARP, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase; PD-L1, programmed death ligand 1; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

Paclitaxel and docetaxel are familiar examples of taxanes used in the first line of therapy (71). TNBC shows a 40% pathological complete response (pCR) for taxane and anthracycline-based therapy in the neoadjuvant setting (72–74). Adjuvant therapy guidelines are usually identical for all the subtypes of breast cancer and TNBC. Chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting is recommended for tumors >0.5 cm in size, as they exhibit increased aggressiveness, with a faster growth rate and metastasis (75). Anthracycline chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and 5-fluorouracil) in patients with metastatic TNBC exhibited a response to survival within 22 months (69). However, acute toxicity is a major concern with anthracycline-based chemotherapy (76). Metastatic patients who develop resistance to anthracycline have shown sensitivity to capecitabine, gemcitabine and vinorelbine (77–79). The combination of docetaxel with capecitabine has improved the OS of patients with metastatic TNBC (78).

Carboplatin and cisplatin are platinum salts that are used in the treatment of TNBC. These generate DNA lesions, and apoptosis occurs in cells unable to repair these breaks (80). For TNBC, carboplatin as a neoadjuvant addition increases the response rate from 37 to 52.1% (81). A phase-II study of 86 patients evaluating the efficacy of platinum monotherapy demonstrated a 32% overall response rate (ORR) for cisplatin and 19% for carboplatin in early TNBC. Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations showed an improved response compared with patients without BRCA1/2 mutations (82). Moreover, phase-II trials showed an improved ORR of 72% in metastatic patients with BRCA mutation with neoadjuvant cisplatin monotherapy (83,84). Recently, the PEARLY trial (NCT02441933) has explored combination therapy of taxanes and carboplatin in the neoadjuvant setting (85). Carboplatin with docetaxel or paclitaxel combination has demonstrated promising efficacy in patients with TNBC and brain metastasis (86). Although TNBC is sensitive to chemotherapy, early relapse is a major concern (75). Therefore, optimizing a tailored standard regime to address chemotherapy issues, such as toxicity, and relapse has led to customizing personalized therapy based on tumor type.

Emerging role of targeted therapy as a strategy to treat TNBC

Therapies targeted to TNBC are being developed based on the expression of specific pathways and genes. Targeted therapy focuses on customizing cancer therapy to an individual patient's tumor (87,88). TNBC being heterogenous, targeting alterations specific to the tumor would be the most effective treatment option. A study using genomics and transcriptomics has led to identifying molecular markers that could be effectively targeted in TNBC (89). PARP inhibitors, PI3K/AKT inhibitors, and anti-androgen therapy are under clinical investigation (Fig. 3) (58).

PARP inhibitors for patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation

PARP is expressed in ample amounts as a nuclear enzyme that plays a critical role in DNA repair, cell proliferation, and signaling. It transfers ADP-ribose to target proteins from NAD+ and ribosylates them (90). In response to DNA damage, PARP is known to activate the DNA repair process through poly (ADP)-ribosylation of multiple nuclear proteins that play a role in chromatin architecture and DNA metabolism (91). Therefore, PARP inhibition leads to the accumulation of double-strand breaks (DSBs) in cells undergoing replication. The presence of wild-type BRCA1/2 in cells results in a homologous recombination mode of repair of DSBs. However, in the cells deficient of BRCA1/2, homologous recombination is disrupted, and PARP repairs the breaks (92–94). Therefore, in these BRCA1/2-deficient cases, inhibiting PARP will result in severe, selective toxicity called ‘synthetic lethality’ (95). Using PARP inhibitors in treatment sensitizes the tumor cells to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, causing synthetic lethality in patients with hereditary BRCA1/2 mutations identified in several TNBC subtypes (Fig. 4A) (96).

Figure 4.

Targeted therapies currently explored for TNBC. (A) PARP inhibitors, such as olaparib and veliparib are currently under clinical trials to bring about synthetic lethality in homologous recombination-deficient TNBC harbouring BRCA1 mutations. (B) PI3K-activated TNBC with loss of PTEN can be treated with buparlisib or ipatasertib, which inhibit the PI3K enzyme. (C) In the LAR subtype of cancers, where the expression of AR is very high, AR blockers like bicalutamide and enzalutamide have made their way. (D) Antibody-drug conjugates are specific to cell-surface molecules and linked to a potent cytotoxic agent that kills the cancer cell. (E) PD-L1 blockade using atezolizumab has shown positive results in a clinical trial on patients with TNBC. AR, androgen receptor; DSBR, double-strand break; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; PARP, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase; PD-1, programmed death-1; PD-L1, PD ligand 1; SSBR, single-strand break; TCR, T cell receptor; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; LAR, luminal androgen receptor; ATM, ataxia telangiectasia mutated; ATR, ataxia telangiectasia and rad3-related protein; HR, homologous recombination; ADC, antibody-drug conjugates; TROP-2, tumour associated calcium signal transducer 2.

Olaparib and talazoparib are two of the PARP inhibitors approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with deficient BRCA1/2 in metastatic Her2-negative breast cancer as a single agent, based on the phase-III OlympiAD and EMBRACA clinical trials (86–88). Patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCA1/2+) with metastatic breast cancer were grouped into 2:1 to olaparib vs. chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine) of physician's choice in OlympiAD trial (NCT02000622) (97,98). The ORR was 59.9% in the TNBC patient subgroup for olaparib (n=102) and 29.9% in the case of patients who underwent chemotherapy (n=48). Olaparib showed less toxicity in tumorgrade3 and 4 patients than the chemotherapy arm (98,99). In the EMBARCA trial (NCT01945775), gBRCA1/2+ metastatic patients were given 2:1 Talazoparib 1 mg daily vs. chemotherapy of physician's choice. The ORR was 62.6% in patients given with Talazoparib (n=219) and 27.2% in patients treated with chemotherapy (n=144) (99). Several other PARP inhibitors are currently under phase-II/III clinical trials, including veliparib (NCT02163694) and niraparib (NCT01905592) (100–103).

PARP inhibitors are being investigated in combination with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. BrighTNess trial (NCT02032277) is a phase-III trial for stage-II and -III TNBC evaluating the combination of carboplatin with the PARP inhibitor veliparib followed by doxorubicin (104). The ongoing phase-I/II trial (MEDIOLA trial) involves a combination of olaparib and anti-PDL1 checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (105). The phase-III OlympiA trial (NCT02032823) for early TNBC is currently assessing patients with BRCA1/2 mutation treated with olaparib as monotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (106). PARTNER (NCT03150576) (107) is a phase-II/III trial that is currently ongoing checking the efficacy of olaparib and carboplatin combination in a neoadjuvant setting (107). Table II summarizes the clinical trials taken from clinicaltrials.gov.

Table II.

Summary of clinical trials of different group of inhibitors used as targeted therapy in TNBC.

Table II.

Summary of clinical trials of different group of inhibitors used as targeted therapy in TNBC.

A, PARP inhibitors

Drug	Trial	Phase	Stage	Disease setting	Results
carboplatin + paclitaxel + veliparib → AC vs. carboplatin + paclitaxel + placebo → AC vs. placebo + placebo + placebo → AC	BrighTNess, NCT02032277	III	Early	Stage II/III TNBC	ORR 58% vs. 53% vs. 31%
standard NACT + olaparib vs. standard	GeparOla, NCT02789332 NACT + carboplatin AUC2	II	Early	Stage I–III HER2⁻ BC with gBRCA1/2m and/or HRD	pCR 55.1% vs. 48.6%
talazoparib	NCT02282345	II	Early	Stage I–III gBRCA1/2m BC	Ongoing
veliparib + carboplatin → standard NACT vs. standard NACT	I-SPY, NCT01042379	II	Early	Stage II–III TNBC	Ongoing
olaparib + carboplatin + paclitaxel → AC/EC vs. Paclitaxel + carboplatin → AC/EC	PARTNER, NCT03150576	II/III	Early	Stage II/III TNBC and/or gBRCAm BC	Ongoing
olaparib vs. placebo	OlympiA, NCT02032823	III	Early	HER2⁻ BC gBRCA1/2m	Ongoing
olaparib + durvalumab + AZD6738	PHOENIX, NCT03740893	II	Early	Stage II/III TNBC	Ongoing
olaparib vs. PCT	OlympiAD NCT02000622	III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC (gBRCA1/2⁺), prior lines	ORR 59.9% vs. 29.9%
talazoparib vs. PCT	EMBRACA, NCT01945775	III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC (gBRCA1/2⁺), prior lines	ORR 62.6% vs. 27.2%
niraparib vs. PCT	BRAVO, NCT01905592	III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC (gBRCA1/2⁺), prior lines	Ongoing
veliparib + paclitaxel + carboplatin vs. placebo + Paclitaxel + carboplatin	BROCADE3, NCT02163694	III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC (gBRCA1/2⁺), prior lines	Ongoing
niraparib + pembrolizumab	TOPACIO NCT02657889	I/II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
olaparib vs. olaparib + ceralasertib vs. olaparib + adavosertib	NCT03330847	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
olaparib + durvalumab + bevacizumab	MEDIOLA, NCT02734004	I/II	Advanced	gBRCAm metastatic HER-2⁻ BC	Ongoing
olaparib + durvalumab	NCT03801369	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
talazoparib + avelumab	NCT03330405	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
olaparib + durvalumab	NCT03167619	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
olaparib	DORA, NCT00679783	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
talazoparib + ZEN003694	NCT03901469	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
talazoparib	NCT02401347	II	Advanced	BRCA1/2 wild-type HER2⁻ BC	Ongoing
veliparib + cisplatin	NCT02595905	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
pembrolizumab + olaparib + gemcitabine + carboplatin	NCT04191135	II/III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing

B, PI3K inhibitors

Drug	Trial	Phase	Stage	Disease setting	Results

iptasertib + paclitaxel vs. placebo + paclitaxel	LOTUS, NCT02162719	II	Advanced	Advanced TNBC	ORR 40% vs. 32%
buparlisib +paclitaxel vs. placebo + paclitaxel	BELLE-4, NCT01572727	II	Metastatic	Metastatic Her-2⁻	ORR 22.6% vs. 27%
capivasertib + paclitaxel vs. placebo + paclitaxel	PAKT, NCT02423603	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
Tak-228 + Tak-117 + cisplatin + Nab-paclitaxel	NCT03193853	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
LY3023414 + prexasertib	ExIST, NCT04032080	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
everolimus + carboplatin	NCT02531932	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
ipatasertib + paclitaxel	IPATunity130; NCT03337724	II/III	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
alpelisib + Nab-paclitaxel	NCT04216472	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
capivasertib + paclitaxel	CapItello290, NCT03997123	III	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
IPI-549 + atezolizumab + bevacizumab + Nab-paclitaxel	MARIO-3, NCT03961698	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
gedatolisib + talazoparib	NCT03911973	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
vistusertib + selumetinib	TORCMEK NCT02583542	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
capivasertib +ceralasertib + adavosertib + olaparib	OLAPCO NCT02576444	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing

C, AR Antagonists

Drug	Trial	Phase	Stage	Disease setting	Results

enzalutamide	NCT02750358	II	Early	TNBC	Ongoing
enzalutamide + paclitaxel	NCT02689427	II	Early	Stage I–III	Ongoing
bicalutamide	NCT03055312	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	CBR 19%
enzalutamide	TBCRC011, NCT01889238	II	Advanced	Metastatic Her-2⁻	CBR 25%
bicalutamide	NCT00468715	II	Advanced	Metastatic BC	Ongoing
abiraterone acetate + prednisone	NCT01842321	II	Advanced	Metastatic Her-2⁻	Ongoing
palbociclib + bicalutamide	NCT02605486	I/II	Advanced	Metastatic BC	Ongoing
orteronel	NCT01990209	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
enobosarm + pembrolizumab	NCT02971761	II	Advanced	AR⁺ Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
bicalutamide + palbociclib	NCT02605486	II	Advanced	AR⁺ Metastatic BC	Ongoing
enzalutamide + taselisib	NCT02457910	I/II	Advanced	AR⁺ Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
enzalutamide + alpelisib	NCT03207529	II	Advanced	AR⁺ PTEN⁺ Metastatic BC	Ongoing
bicalutamide	SYSUCC-007, NCT03055312	III	Advanced	AR⁺ Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
enzalutamide	NCT02750358	II	Advanced	AR⁺ Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
bicalutamide + ribociclib	NCT03090165	I/II	Advanced	AR⁺ Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
darolutamide + capecitabine	START, NCT03383679	II	Advanced	Metastatic BC	Ongoing
orteronel	NCT01990209	II	Advanced	Metastatic BC	Ongoing

D, ADCs

Drug	Trial	Phase	Stage	Disease setting	Results

sacituzumab govitecan-hziy (topoisimerase-1 inhibitor SN-38), Trop2 ADC	NCT01631552	I/II	Advanced	Advanced TNBC	ORR 33%
ladiratuzumab vedotin, MMAE microtubule inhibitor, LIV-1	NCT01969643	I	Advanced	Advanced TNBC	ORR 25%
sacituzumab govitecan chemotherapy	ASCENT NCT02574455	II	Advanced	Advanced TNBC	Ongoing
CAB-ROR2-ADC+BA3021	NCT03504488	I/II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
SKB264	A264, NCT04152499	I/II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
enfortumab vedotin	EV-202, NCT04225117	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing

E, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Drug	Trial	Phase	Stage	Disease setting	Results

durvalumab + Nab-paclitaxel → EC vs. placebo + Nab-paclitaxel → EC	GeparNuevo, NCT02685059	II	Early	Stage II	pCR 53.4% vs. 44.2%
Nab-paclitaxel + carboplatin + pembrolizumab → AC+ pembrolizumab vs. placebo + Nab-paclitaxel + carboplatin → AC	KEYNOTE-173, NCT02622074	I	Early	T2/T3 88.3%, ≥N1 66.7%	pCR 60%
pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs. placebo + chemotherapy	KEYNOTE-522, NCT0303648	III	Early	T1cN1-2 or T2-4N0-N2	pCR 64.8% vs. 51.2%
carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel + atezolizumab → surgery → AC/EC/FEC	NeoTRIPaPDL1, NCT02620280	III	Early	T1cN1, T2N1, T3N0	pCR 43.5% vs. 40.8%
pembrolizumab + paclitaxel → AC vs. placebo + Paclitaxel → AC	ISPY-2, NCT01042379	II	Early	Stage II/III	Ongoing
pembrolizumab	SWOG1418/BR006, NCT02954874	III	Early	ypT ≥1 cm or ypN1-3, TNBC	Ongoing
avelumab	A-BRAVE, NCT02926196	III	Early	ypT>1 mm or ypN1-3 or IIB-III	Ongoing
atezolizumab + paclitaxel + carboplatin → atezolizumab + AC/EC vs. paclitaxel + carboplatin → AC/EC	NSABP B 59, NCT03281954	III	Early	≥ T2N0 or ≥ T1cN1	Ongoing
aezolizumab + paclitaxel → atezolizumab + AC/EC vs. paclitaxel → AC/EC	IMpassion030, NCT03498716	III	Early	II–III	Ongoing
atezolizumab + Nab paclitaxel → atezolizumab + AC vs. placebo+ Nab paclitaxel → placebo + AC	IMpassion031, NCT03197935	III	Early	cT2-cT4, cN0-cN3, cM0	Ongoing
pembrolizumab vs. PTC	KEYNOTE-119, NCT02555657	III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	Negative
atezolizumab + Nab paclitaxel vs. placebo + Nab paclitaxel	IMpassion130, NCT02425891	III	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	OS 7.2 vs. 5.5 months
pembrolizumab	KEYNOTE-012, NCT01848834	I	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	ORR 18.5%
pembrolizumab	KEYNOTE-086, NCT02447003	II	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	ORR ~5%
avelumab	JAVELIN, NCT01772004	I	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	ORR 21.6%
atezolizumab	NCT01375842	I	Advanced	Metastatic TNBC	ORR 10%
atezolizumab + paclitaxel vs. placebo + paclitaxel	IMpassion131, NCT03125902	III	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
atezolizumab + gemcitabine + capecitabine + carboplatin vs. placebo + gemcitabine + capecitabine + carboplatin	IMpassion132, NCT03371017	III	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
pembrolizumab + Nab-paclitaxel + paclitaxel + gemcitabine + carboplatin vs. placebo + Nab-paclitaxel +paclitaxel + gemcitabine + carboplatin	KEYNOTE-355, NCT02819518	III	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
pembrolizumab + eribulin	ENHANCE-1, NCT02513472	I/II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
NKTR-214 1 nivolumab	PIVOT-02 NCT02983045	II	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing
Intratumoral c-MET mRNA CAR T cells	NCT01837602	I	Metastatic	Metastatic TNBC	Ongoing

F, Conventional platinum agents

Drug	Trial	Phase	Stage	Disease setting	Results

carboplatin + bevacizumab + standard NAC vs. bevacizumab + standard NAC	GeparSixto, NCT01426880	II	Early	Stage II/III/IV	pCR 53.2% vs. 36.9%
cisplatin + paclitaxel + everolimus vs. cisplatin + paclitaxel + placebo	NCT00930930	II	Early	Stage II/III, TNBC	pCR 36% vs. 48%
paclitaxel + carboplatin vs. paclitaxel + epirubicin	NCT01276769	II	Early	Stage II/III, TNBC	pCR 38.6% vs. 14.0%
cisplatin + paclitaxel	SHPD001, NCT02199418	II	Early	TNBC	pCR 64.7%
gemcitabine + carboplatin + iniparib	PreECOG 0105NCT00813956	II	Early	Stage I–IIIA	pCR 62.4% vs. 22.3%
paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab → dose-dense AC vs. standard NAC	CALGB40603, NCT00861705	II	Advanced	Locally advanced TNBC	pCR 62.4% vs. 22.3%

[i] ORR, overall response rate; CBR, clinical benefit rate; OS, overall survival; PCT, physician's choice therapy; PFS, progression-free survival; AC, doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; ADC, antibody-drug conjugate; EC, epirubicin/cyclophosphamide; pCR, pathological complete response; FEC, fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide; AR, androgen receptor; Her2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; gBRCA1/2, germline BRCA1/2; gBRCA1/m, gBRCA1/2-mutated; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; NAC, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; AUC2, area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration vs. time curve, value 2; HRD, homologous recombination deficiency; cT, clinical classified tumour; cN, clinical node staging; yPT, pathologic post-therapy tumour stage; yPN, pathologic post-therapy node stage; CM, clinical modification.

PI3K/AKT inhibitors for PTEN low TNBC

PI3K/AKT pathway is involved in cell growth and glucose metabolism. Under normal conditions, growth factors, such as insulin-activated receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) result in PI3K activation (108). This is followed by phosphorylation of phosphatidylinositol-4,5-trisphosphate (PIP2) by PI3K and conversion to phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3) (109). AKT binds to membrane-bound PIP3, bringing AKT close to phosphoinositide-dependent kinase 1 (PDK1) (110). PDK1 phosphorylates AKT resulting in the activation of multiple downstream pathways like cell growth, cell cycle, and metabolic pathways. This pathway is negatively regulated by the PTEN phosphatase (108,109,111). In TNBC, this pathway is active in 9.6% of patients due to the loss of PTEN activity (110) (Fig. 4B). Therefore, studies using PI3K inhibitors have been conducted in patients with TNBC (Table II), such as the LOTUS trial (NCT02162719), which is a phase-II trial evaluating ipatasertib in 124 patients (ORR in the PTENlow group was 48% compared with patients with PTEN expression) (112). The oral pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib has also been used in combination with paclitaxel in a phase-II trial (NCT01572727) involving metastatic Her2-negative patients; the ORR was 22.6% compared with placebo and paclitaxel (113).

Capivasertib and AZD5363 are AKT inhibitors that are currently being investigated for PFS in patients with metastatic TNBC in the CAPItello-290 (NCT03997123) and PAKT (NCT02423603) trials, respectively (114,115). In the Phase-II trial under neoadjuvant setting, mTOR inhibitor and chemotherapy combined did not show any effect in early TNBC treatment (116). The mTOR inhibitors temsirolimus or everolimus in combination with doxorubicin and bevacizumab displayed an objective response rate of 21% in mesenchymal subtype of TNBC (117).

AR inhibitors for AR-overexpressing TNBC

AR belongs to the nuclear steroid hormone family of receptors, is highly expressed in the LAR subtype of TNBC (118). AR antagonists have shown an effect in vitro and in vivo in the LAR type (Fig. 4C). Gucalp et al (119) used the AR inhibitor bicalutamide in a phase-II trial involving 424 AR-positive patients, which showed a clinical benefit rate of 19% and a median progression-free survival of 12 weeks (119). Among the ongoing clinical trials, Bicalutamide treatment response is being compared to standard chemotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC in an ongoing phase-III as the first line of therapy (NCT03055312). Enzalutamide is another AR antagonist with which a phase-II trial (NCT01889238) was conducted in AR-positive patients with advanced TNBC, in which a clinical benefit of 25% was observed (120). Androgen-driven gene expression signature (Dx-signature) stratified patients into a Dx-positive and a Dx-negative group. Dx-positive patients had an improved response to enzalutamide compared with Dx-negative patients (120,121). In AR-positive patients with early-stage TNBC, enzalutamide is currently under investigation both as a monotherapy (NCT02750358) and in combination with paclitaxel (NCT02689427). Around 40% of AR-positive TNBC patients show activation of the PI3K-AKT pathway (122). Therefore, the combined effect of enzalutamide and the PI3K inhibitor taselisib was evaluated in the TBRC032 trial(NCT02457910) where CBR was 35.7% (123). Further details are provided in Table II.

Antibody-drug conjugates targeting surface antigens

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) are made up of a linker, an inhibitor, and an antibody. The antibody is selected to be specific to cell surface molecules of cancer cells and not normal cells. The payload of cytotoxic agents must be potent to kill the cancer cell. Usually, a stable molecule is used as a linker that will bind strongly to the inhibitor (124,125) (Fig. 4D). Elevated expression of tumor-associated calcium-linked signal-transducer two cell surface glycoprotein (Trop-2) has been reported in TNBC and often correlated with poor prognosis (126). Sacituzumab Govitecan (IMMU-132) is an ADC used to target Trop-2 that delivers a topoisomerase-I inhibiting payload resulting in DSBs. Bardia et al (127) conducted a phase-I/II study involving patients with advanced-stage TNBC who had previously received two lines of treatment, and the ORR was 33.33%. A phase-III study (NCT02574455) of sacituzumab govitecan in relapsed patients with TNBC is ongoing. SKB264 is another anti-Trop2 currently under investigation in the NCT04152499 phase-I trial with metastatic TNBC patients (128). Another ADC, ladiratuzumab vedotin, an immunoglobulin G1 antibody with a microtubule inhibitor (MMAE), has shown an ORR of 25% of patients with TNBC (129).

Inhibitors targeting other signaling pathways

In addition to PARP and PI3K inhibitors, inhibitors of other molecular targets are being investigated in TNBC. HDAC inhibitors are currently being investigated as monotherapy (NCT02623751) and in combination with cisplatin (NCT02393794). Various Ataxia Telangiectasia and Rad3-Related Protein (ATR) and Wee inhibitors are also in clinical trials for TNBC (1). MEK inhibitors and inhibitors of cell cycle-regulating agents, such as Aurora kinase, showed antitumor effects in animal xenografts (130,131). Palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, was used in a phase-I study along with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic TNBC (n=9). Clinical benefit was experienced in one-third of the patients (132). BCL2 inhibitors in TNBC cell lines have shown to decrease cell proliferation (133). In TNBC cells, BCL2 expression is high (134). Therefore, BCL2 inhibitors should be further investigated for their impact as monotherapy and in combination.

Immunotherapy as monotherapy and combination therapy for TNBC

In the last decade, substantial evidence has been generated describing the immune system's role in guiding the disease progression of TNBC (135). It is one of the rapidly progressing areas of breast cancer research. The T cell receptor (TCR) recognizes antigen presented on major histocompatibility complex molecules by cancer cells (136). It is followed by signaling from co-stimulatory factors such as CD28, modulated by immune-checkpoint (co-inhibitory) molecules (137). In TNBC, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) functions as a critical mediator of the balance and escape stages of cancer immunoediting (138–140). Around 20% of TNBC tumors express PD-L1, which is associated with poor prognostic features, such as higher grade, HER2-positive status, ER-negative status and large tumor size (141). Quantification of PD-L1 can be carried out on immune cells or tumor cells using immunohistochemistry (141–143). Studies have suggested that PD-L1 expression varies depending on the stage of TNBC and cell type (141–143). Expression of PD-L1 in TNBC has been associated with improved pCR (50% vs. 21%) (39,144). Along with PD-L1, TILs are also high in number in TNBC (144,145). TILs are considered to be a good prognostic marker in TNBC (146). Inhibitors of PD-1/PD-L1 block the interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1, thereby initiating a positive immune response that results in tumor killing (123). Over the last few years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been in the limelight due to improved efficacy shown during clinical trials (Fig. 4E). Pembrolizumab (NCT04191135 and NCT01042379), nivolumab (NCT03818685 and NCT03414684), atezolizumab (NCT03281954 and NCT03498716) and durvalumab (NCT03167619 and NCT03616886) are some of the CPIs currently used in ongoing clinical trials for TNBC (147). The IMpassion130 trial (NCT02425891) evaluated the use of atezolizumab with paclitaxel as the first line of therapy for patients with metastatic TNBC (n=901), showing PD-L1 positivity. Atezolizumab is a PD-LA inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-L1 and PD-1, thereby promoting T cell activity. It is now an FDA-approved drug for PD-L1-positive patients with TNBC (148). The KEYNOTE-119 phase-III clinical trial (149) evaluated pembrolizumab's effect as monotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC vs. physician's choice chemotherapy (capecitabine, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or eribulin). The OS of this study was not encouraging (149). In the recent trial KEYNOTE-355 (NCT02819518), PD-L1-positive patients with metastatic TNBC showed improved PFS when pembrolizumab was given in combination with chemotherapy, in comparison with patients given chemotherapy alone (150). Currently, two trials, IMpassion131 (NCT03125902) and IMpassion132 (NCT03371017), are being carried out: The former is investigating the outcomes for paclitaxel and atezolizumab in untreated metastatic patients who are PD-L1 positive, while the latter is for atezolizumab along with chemotherapy (gemcitabine, capecitabine and carboplatin) in early relapsing recurrent patients with TNBC (PD-L1 positive). For early-stage breast cancer, the KEYNOTE-173 phase-Ib trial evaluated pembrolizumab along with taxane and anthracycline neoadjuvant therapy, which resulted in an ORR of 100% (151). The ISPY-2 trial was a phase-III trial evaluating pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy (vs. placebo) in patients with stage-II/III TNBC, which demonstrated an ORR of 60 and 20%, respectively (152). The SWOG S1418 (NCT02954874) trial is investigating anti-PD-1/-PD-L1 in the adjuvant setting for a year in order to determine whether there is an improvement in DFS. The NSABP B-59 (NCT03281954) and IMpassion030 (NCT03498716) trials are addressing whether the combination of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and atezolizumab might improve DFS compared with chemotherapy alone (153).

Non-coding RNA as therapy

Sequencing of all the RNA species in a given cell using RNA-seq identified several RNA species, including mRNA. The two major classes of non-coding RNA studied in TNBC development and treatment are miRNA and Long non-coding RNA.

MicroRNA (miRNA/miR) is a small non-coding RNA, usually 20–22 nucleotides in length, regulating gene expression. miRNA is known to bind to the 3′untranslated region of mRNA. This binding either degrades mRNA or represses translation (154). miRNA is a key player in tumorigenesis, stemness, and drug resistance in TNBC (155–157). For instance, tumour suppressor miRNAs, involved in tumour development, miR-190a, miR-136-5p, miR-126-5p, miR-135b-5p and miR-182-5p are downregulated in TNBC (158). miR-22 is downregulation in TNBC, is associated with migration and metastasis. miR-22 exerts its effect through eukaryotic elongation factor 2 kinase (eEF2K) expression, which activates PI3K signaling pathway (159). Also, oncosuppressor, miR-200b, activate target genes like SRY-box transcription factor 2 (SOX2), CD133, and zinc finger E-box binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1), aiding in migration and invasion and stemness (157,160). High expression of miR-95 in TNBC indicates radiotherapy resistance that occurs by targeting sphingosine-1-phosphate signaling (161). Downregulated miR-449 upregulates CDK2, CCNE2 causing doxorubicin resistancein TNBC (162,163) (Table III). Multiple studies also show that miRNAs are expressed in different stages of TNBC Multiple studies also show that miRNAs are expressed in different stages of TNBC (164–166). These studies give hope for miRNA-based therapies, as the use of miRNA mimics or inhibitor oligonucleotides could serve as a therapeutic approach for TNBC (167). A study conducted by Shu et al (168) used miR-21 combined with aptamer targeting EGFR, blocking tumor growth in murine models. Yin et al (169) designed an RNA aptamer bound to CD133 with a sequence complementary to miR-21 carried by a three-way junction motif scaffold that reduced cell migration in TNBC cells (169). Non-coding RNA is being pursued as one of the TNBC therapy.

Table III.

Role of miRNA and lncRNA expressed in triple negative breast cancer.

lncRNA (long non-coding RNA), ~200 nucleotides in length, regulates gene expression at the epigenetic, transcription, post-transcription levels, and post-translation modification (16). The long intergenic non-coding RNA for kinase activation activates HIF-1α by phosphorylating it via leucine-rich repeat kinase 2to promote glycolysis and tumorigenesis in TNBC (170). Yang et al (171) demonstrated the involvement of POU domain class 3 transcription factor 3 (POU3F3) in inhibiting apoptosis and promoting proliferation in TNBC (171). Nuclear paraspeckle assembly transcript 1 (NEAT1) plays a role in TNBC metastasis (172–174). Some lncRNAs (HOTAIR, LncRNA-ATB, LincRNA-ROR) are known to be co-expressed with transcription factors involved in EMT and proliferation (175). Vaidya et al (176) demonstrated that nanoparticle-mediated transfer of RNA interference molecules targeting differentiation antagonizing non-protein coding RNA, a lncRNA that is enriched in TNBC, showed some efficacy in a murine xenograft model of TNBC (Table III). These studies have shed light on the use of antisense oligonucleotides against oncogenic lncRNA as a potential approach to TNBC therapy.

Conclusions

TNBC is associated with poor prognosis compared to other breast cancer subtypes, and its treatment remains challenging. New technology and tools have provided insight into the molecular mechanism of the disease. This knowledge has led to the identification of druggable targets and the development of biomarker-driven therapy. The FDA-approved drugs for TNBC to date include PARP inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and atezolizumab for PD-L1+ tumors. Emerging targeted therapies have given hope for the treatment of TNBC. The inclusion of immunotherapy has shown promising results. Additionally, attempts to identify combinations that work effectively against TNBC are ongoing. A combination of the molecular profiles, including non-coding RNA and histology, has improved the prognosis and guided the treatment for TNBC.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Raksha Rao K. (Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India) for the critical reading of the manuscript and suggestions.

Funding

Financial support was provided by The Department of Science and Technology Fund for Improvement of S&T Infrastructure in Higher Educational Institutions (grant no. SR/FST/LSI-5361/2012), The Department of Biotechnology, India, Glue grant (BTIPR23078/MED/29/1253/2017), and The Departments Information Technology, Biotechnology and Science and Technology, Government of Karnataka, India. MM is supported by The Senior Research Fellowship from Department of Science and Technology-Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research, India (DST/INSPIRE Fellowship/2016/IF160535).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

MM and BC conceived the article, performed the literature search and data analysis, drafted and critically revised the work, and confirm the authenticity of the raw data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Glossary

Abbreviations

Abbreviations:

TNBC	triple-negative breast cancer
FGFR	fibroblast growth factor receptor
ORR	overall response rate
OS	overall survival
PFS	progression free survival
PCT	physician's choice therapy

References

1	Hwang SY, Park S and Kwon Y: Recent therapeutic trends and promising targets in triple negative breast cancer. Pharmacol Ther. 199:30–57. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A and Bray F: Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. Feb 4–2021.(Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Perue CM, Sorlie T, Elsen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey S and Rees C: Molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature. 406:747–52. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Penault-Llorca F and Viale G: Pathological and molecular diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer: A clinical perspective. Ann Oncol. 23:vi19–vi22. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Yeh IT and Mies C: Application of immunohistochemistry to breast lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 132:349–358. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Fedele M, Cerchia L and Chiappetta G: The epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer: Focus on basal-like carcinomas. Cancers. 9:1342017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Dias K, Dvorkin-Gheva A, Hallett RM, Wu Y, Hassell J, Pond GR, Levine M, Whelan T and Bane AL: Claudin-low breast cancer; clinical & pathological characteristics. PLoS One. 12:e01686692017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Spigel DR and Burstein HJ: HER2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 3:163–174. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, Deng S, Johnsen H, Pesich R, Geisler S, et al: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:8418–8423. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, Marron JS, He X, Qaqish BF, Livasy C, Carey LA, Reynolds E, Dressler L, et al: The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics. 7:962006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Wang Q, Xu M, Sun Y, Chen J, Chen C, Qian C, Chen Y, Cao L, Xu Q, Du X and Yang W: Gene expression profiling for diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Front Oncol. 9:3542019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, Pienkowski T, Martin M, Press M, Mackey J, Glaspy J, Chan A, Pawlicki M, et al: Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 365:1273–1283. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Marotti JD, de Abreu FB, Wells WA and Tsongalis GJ: Triple-negative breast cancer: Next-generation sequencing for target identification. Am J Pathol. 187:2133–2138. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Reis-Filho JS and Tutt ANJ: Triple negative tumours: A critical review. Histopathology. 52:108–118. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Kaplan HG, Malmgren JA and Atwood M: T1N0 triple negative breast cancer: Risk of recurrence and adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast J. 15:454–460. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Chang-Qing Y, Jie L, Shi-Qi Z, Kun Z, Zi-Qian G, Ran X, Hui-Meng L, Ren-Bin Z, Gang Z, Da-Chuan Y and Chen-Yan Z: Recent treatment progress of triple negative breast cancer. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 151:40–53. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Weigelt B and Reis-Filho JS: Histological and molecular types of breast cancer: Is there a unifying taxonomy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 6:7182009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Shah SP, Roth A, Goya R, Oloumi A, Ha G, Zhao Y, Turashvili G, Ding J, Tse K, Haffari G, et al: The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. Nature. 486:395–399. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Malhotra GK, Zhao X, Band H and Band V: Histological, molecular and functional subtypes of breast cancers. Cancer Biol Ther. 10:955–960. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Balkenhol MC, Vreuls W, Wauters CA, Mol SJ, van der Laak JA and Bult P: Histological subtypes in triple negative breast cancer are associated with specific information on survival. Ann Diagn Pathol. 46:1514902020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Romero P, Benhamo V, Deniziaut G, Fuhrmann L, Berger F, Manié E, Bhalshankar J, Vacher S, Laurent C, Marangoni E, et al: Medullary breast carcinoma, a triple-negative breast cancer associated with BCLG overexpression. Am J Pathol. 188:2378–2391. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Huober J, Gelber S, Thurlimann B, Goldhirsch A, Coates AS, Viale G, Öhlschlegel C, Price KN, Gelber RD, Regan MM and Thürlimann B: Prognosis of medullary breast cancer: Analyses of 13 International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trials. Ann Oncol. 23:2843–2851. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Natrajan R, Lambros MB, de Biase D, Vatcheva R, Savage K, Mackay A, Ashworth A and Reis-Filho JS: Molecular analysis reveals a genetic basis for the phenotypic diversity of metaplastic breast carcinomas. J Pathol. 220:562–573. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Hennessy BT, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Stemke-Hale K, Gilcrease MZ, Krishnamurthy S, Lee JS, Fridlyand J, Sahin A, Agarwal R, Joy C, et al: Characterization of a naturally occurring breast cancer subset enriched in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and stem cell characteristics. Cancer Res. 69:4116–4124. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Hayes MJ, Thomas D, Emmons A, Giordano TJ and Kleer CG: Genetic changes of Wnt pathway genes are common events in metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. Clin Cancer Res. 14:4038–4044. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Thomas DN, Asarian A and Xiao P: Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. J Surg Case Rep. 2019:rjy3552019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Ichikawa K, Mizukami Y, Takayama T, Takemura A, Miyati T and Taniya T: A case of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. J Med Ultrasonics. 34:193–196. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Sun JY, Wu SG, Chen SY, Li FY, Lin HX, Chen YX and He ZY: Adjuvant radiation therapy and survival for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. Breast. 31:214–218. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Aktepe F, Sarsenov D and Özmen V: Secretory carcinoma of the breast. J Breast Health. 12:1742016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Li L, Wu N, Li F, Li L, Wei L and Liu J: Clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of 44 patients with pure secretory breast carcinoma. Cancer Biol Med. 16:1392019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Pareja F, Geyer FC, Marchiò C, Burke KA, Weigelt B and Reis-Filho JS: Triple-negative breast cancer: The importance of molecular and histologic subtyping, and recognition of low-grade variants. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2:160362016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Kuroda H, Sakamoto G, Ohnisi K and Itoyama S: Clinical and pathological features of glycogen-rich clear cell carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer. 12:189–195. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Geyer FC, Pareja F, Weigelt B, Rakha E, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ and Reis-Filho JS: The spectrum of triple-negative breast disease: High-and low-grade lesions. Am J Pathol. 187:2139–2151. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Degnim AC, Brahmbhatt RD, Radisky DC, Hoskin TL, Stallings-Mann M, Laudenschlager M, Mansfield A, Frost MH, Murphy L, Knutson K and Visscher DW: Immune cell quantitation in normal breast tissue lobules with and without lobulitis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 144:539–549. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Aaltomaa S, Lipponen P, Eskelinen M, Kosma VM, Marin S, Alhava E and Syrjänen K: Lymphocyte infiltrates as a prognostic variable in female breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 28:859–864. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
36	Matsumoto H, Koo S, Dent R, Tan PH and Iqbal J: Role of inflammatory infiltrates in triple negative breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 68:506–510. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Fridman WH, Galon J, Pagès F, Tartour E, Sautès-Fridman C and Kroemer G: Prognostic and predictive impact of intra-and peritumoral immune infiltrates. Cancer Res. 71:5601–5605. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Karn T, Jiang T, Hatzis C, Sänger N, El-Balat A, Holtrich U, Becker S, Bianchini G and Pusztai L: Abstract S1-07: Immune sculpting of the triple negative breast cancer genome. Cancer Res. 772017.doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS16-S1-07.
39	Bottai G, Raschioni C, Losurdo A, Di Tommaso L, Tinterri C, Torrisi R, Reis-Filho JS, Roncalli M, Sotiriou C, Santoro A, et al: An immune stratification reveals a subset of PD-1/LAG-3 double-positive triple-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 18:1212016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Gruosso T, Gigoux M, Bertos N, Manem VSK, Guiot MC, Buisseret L, Salgado R, Van den Eyden G, Haibe-Kains B and Park M: Distinct immune microenvironments stratify triple-negative breast cancer and predict outcome. Ann Oncol. 28:i162017. View Article : Google Scholar
41	Abramson VG, Lehmann BD, Ballinger TJ and Pietenpol JA: Subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer: Implications for therapy. Cancer. 121:8–16. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
42	Lehmann BD and Pietenpol JA: Identification and use of biomarkers in treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer subtypes. J Pathol. 232:142–150. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
43	Burstein MD, Tsimelzon A, Poage GM, Covington KR, Contreras A, Fuqua SA, Savage MI, Osborne CK, Hilsenbeck SG, Chang JC, et al: Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies novel subtypes and targets of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 21:1688–1698. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
44	Ahn SG, Kim SJ, Kim C and Jeong J: Molecular classification of triple-negative breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 19:223–230. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Liu YR, Jiang YZ, Xu XE, Yu KD, Jin X, Hu X, Zuo WJ, Hao S, Wu J, Liu GY, et al: Comprehensive transcriptome analysis identifies novel molecular subtypes and subtype-specific RNAs of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 18:332016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
46	Yin L, Duan JJ, Bian XW and Yu S: Triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtyping and treatment progress. Breast Cancer Res. 22:612020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
47	Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, Speed D, Lynch AG, Samarajiwa S, Yuan Y, et al: The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature. 486:346–352. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
48	Venkitaraman AR: Linking the cellular functions of BRCA genes to cancer pathogenesis and treatment. Ann Rev Pathol. 4:461–487. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
49	Atchley DP, Albarracin CT, Lopez A, Valero V, Amos CI, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hortobagyi GN and Arun BK: Clinical and pathologic characteristics of patients with BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 26:4282–4288. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
50	Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, Bégin LR, Goffin JR, Wong N, Trudel M and Akslen LA: Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 95:1482–1485. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
51	Cancer Genome Atlas Network: Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 490:61–70. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
52	Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg A, et al: Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: A combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 72:1117–1130. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
53	Turner N, Tutt A and Ashworth A: Hallmarks of ‘BRCAness’ in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 4:814–819. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
54	Lord CJ and Ashworth A: BRCAness revisited. Nat Rev Cancer. 16:110–120. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
55	Bertucci F, Ng CK, Patsouris A, Droin N, Piscuoglio S, Carbuccia N, Soria JC, Dien AT, Adnani Y, Kamal M, et al: Genomic characterization of metastatic breast cancers. Nature. 569:560–564. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
56	Jiang YZ, Ma D, Suo C, Shi J, Xue M, Hu X, Xiao Y, Yu KD, Liu YR, Yu Y, et al: Genomic and transcriptomic landscape of triple-negative breast cancers: Subtypes and treatment strategies. Cancer Cell. 35:428–440.e5. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
57	Nik-Zainal S, Davies H, Staaf J, Ramakrishna M, Glodzik D, Zou X, Martincorena I, Alexandrov LB, Martin S, Wedge DC, et al: Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole-genome sequences. Nature. 534:47–54. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
58	Bianchini G, Balko JM, Mayer IA, Sanders ME and Gianni L: Triple-negative breast cancer: Challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 13:674–690. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
59	Zhao Y, Sheng M, Zheng L, Xiong D, Yang K and Luo Y: Application of circulating tumor DNA in breast cancer. Breast J. 26:1797–1800. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
60	Lustberg MB, Stover DG and Chalmers JJ: Implementing liquid biopsies in clinical trials: State of affairs, opportunities and challenges. Cancer J. 24:61–64. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
61	Thompson AM and Moulder-Thompson SL: Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 23 (Suppl 10):x231–x236. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
62	Stover DG, Parsons HA, Ha G, Freeman SS, Barry WT, Guo H, Choudhury AD, Gydush G, Reed SC, Rhoades J, et al: Association of cell-free DNA tumor fraction and somatic copy number alterations with survival in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 36:543–553. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
63	Bidard FC, Peeters DJ, Fehm T, Nolé F, Gisbert-Criado R, Mavroudis D, Grisanti S, Generali D, Garcia-Saenz JA, Stebbing J, et al: Clinical validity of circulating tumour cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 15:406–414. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
64	Cristofanilli M, Pierga JY, Reuben J, Rademaker A, Davis AA, Peeters DJ, Fehm T, Nolé F, Gisbert-Criado R, Mavroudis D, et al: The clinical use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration for staging of metastatic breast cancer (MBC): International expert consensus paper. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 134:39–45. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
65	Riva F, Bidard FC, Houy A, Saliou A, Madic J, Rampanou A, Hego C, Milder M, Cottu P, Sablin MP, et al: Patient-specific circulating tumor DNA detection during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Chem. 63:691–699. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
66	Radovich M, Jiang G, Chitambar C, Nanda R, Falkson C, Lynce FC, Gallagher C, Isaacs C, Blaya M, Paplomata E, et al: Abstract GS5-02: Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is significantly associated with disease recurrence in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Preplanned correlative results from clinical trial BRE12-158. Cancer Res. 802020.doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS19-GS5-02.
67	Becker S: A historic and scientific review of breast cancer: The next global healthcare challenge. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 131 (Suppl 1):S36–S39. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
68	Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, Asmar L, Geyer CE Jr, Jacobs SA, Robert NJ, Hopkins JO, O'Shaughnessy JA, Dang CT, et al: Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: The ABC Trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG Oncology). J Clin Oncol. 35:2647–2655. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
69	Mansel RE, Fodstad O and Jiang WG: Metastasis of breast cancer. Springer; 2007, View Article : Google Scholar
70	Mosca L, Ilari A, Fazi F, Assaraf YG and Colotti G: Taxanes in cancer treatment: Activity, chemoresistance and its overcoming. Drug Resist Updat. 54:1007422021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
71	Bachegowda LS, Makower DF and Sparano JA: Taxanes: Impact on breast cancer therapy. Anticancer Drugs. 25:512–521. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
72	Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, Bonnefoi H, Cameron D, Gianni L, Valagussa P, et al: Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 384:164–172. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
73	Von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, Gerber B, Eiermann W, Hilfrich J, Huober J, et al: Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 30:1796–1804. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
74	Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, André F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, Symmans WF, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hennessy B, Green M, et al: Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 26:1275–1281. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
75	Park JH, Ahn JH and Kim SB: How shall we treat early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): From the current standard to upcoming immuno-molecular strategies. ESMO Open. 3:e0003572018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
76	Greene J and Hennessy B: The role of anthracyclines in the treatment of early breast cancer. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 21:201–212. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
77	Park JS, Jeung HC, Rha SY, Ahn JB, Kang B, Chon HJ, Hong MH, Lim S, Yang WI, Nam CM and Chung HC: Phase II gemcitabine and capecitabine combination therapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracycline and taxane. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 74:799–808. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
78	Karachaliou N, Ziras N, Syrigos K, Tryfonidis K, Papadimitraki E, Kontopodis E, Bozionelou V, Kalykaki A, Georgoulias V and Mavroudis D: A multicenter phase II trial of docetaxel and capecitabine as salvage treatment in anthracycline-and taxane-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 70:169–176. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
79	Anton A, Lluch A, Casado A, Provencio M, Muñoz M, Lao J, Bermejo B, Paules AB, Gayo J and Martin M: Phase I study of oral vinorelbine and capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 30:2255–2261. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
80	Kennedy RD, Quinn JE, Mullan PB, Johnston PG and Harkin DP: The role of BRCA1 in the cellular response to chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 96:1659–1668. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
81	Huang L, Liu Q, Chen S and Shao Z: Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with paclitaxel as neoadjuvant regimen for triple negative breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 10:5739–5744. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
82	Isakoff SJ, Mayer EL, He L, Traina TA, Carey LA, Krag KJ, Rugo HS, Liu MC, Stearns V, Come SE, et al: TBCRC009: A multicenter phase II clinical trial of platinum monotherapy with biomarker assessment in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 33:1902–1909. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
83	Byrski T, Dent R, Blecharz P, Foszczynska-Kloda M, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, Cybulski C, Marczyk E, Chrzan R, Eisen A, et al: Results of a phase II open-label, non-randomized trial of cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 14:R1102012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
84	Isakoff SJ: Triple negative breast cancer: Role of specific chemotherapy agents. Cancer J. 16:53–61. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
85	Kim GM, Jeung HC, Jung KH, Kim HJ, Lee KH, Park KH, Lee JE, Anh MS, Kohn S, Lee SS, et al: PEARLY: A randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing anthracyclines followed by taxane versus anthracyclines followed by taxane plus carboplatin as (neo) adjuvant therapy in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 35 (15_suppl):TPS587. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar
86	Chen XS, Nie XQ, Chen CM, Wu JY, Wu J, Lu JS, Shao ZM, Shen ZZ and Shen KW: Weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin is an effective nonanthracycline-containing regimen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 21:961–967. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
87	Sawyers C: Targeted cancer therapy. Nature. 432:294–297. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
88	Dancey JE and Chen HX: Strategies for optimizing combinations of molecularly targeted anticancer agents. Nat Rev Drug Dis. 5:649–659. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
89	Jhan JR and Andrechek ER: Triple-negative breast cancer and the potential for targeted therapy. Pharmacogenomics. 18:1595–1609. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
90	Audebert M, Salles B and Calsou P: Involvement of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 and XRCC1/DNA ligase III in an alternative route for DNA double-strand breaks rejoining. J Biol Chem. 279:55117–55126. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
91	Shall S and de Murcia G: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1: What have we learned from the deficient mouse model? Mutat Res. 460:1–15. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
92	Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, Tutt AN, Johnson DA, Richardson TB, Santarosa M, Dillon KJ, Hickson I, Knights C, et al: Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 434:917–921. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
93	Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, Parker KM, Flower D, Lopez E, Kyle S, Meuth M, Curtin NJ and Helleday T: Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 434:913–917. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
94	Turner N, Tutt A and Ashworth A: Targeting the DNA repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 5:388–393. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
95	Turner NC, Lord CJ, Iorns E, Brough R, Swift S, Elliott R, Rayter S, Tutt AN and Ashworth A: A synthetic lethal siRNA screen identifying genes mediating sensitivity to a PARP inhibitor. EMBO J. 27:1368–1377. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
96	Calabrese CR, Almassy R, Barton S, Batey MA, Calvert AH, Canan-Koch S, Durkacz BW, Hostomsky Z, Kumpf RA, Kyle S, et al: Anticancer chemosensitization and radiosensitization by the novel poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibitor AG14361. J Natl Cancer Inst. 96:56–67. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
97	Robson ME, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, Delaloge S, Li W, Tung NM, Armstrong A, et al: OlympiAD: Phase III trial of olaparib monotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients (pts) with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm). J Clin Oncol. 352017.PubMed/NCBI
98	Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Masuda N, Delaloge S, Li W, Armstrong A, et al: OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: Olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 30:558–566. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
99	Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Gonçalves A, Lee KH, Fehrenbacher L, Yerushalmi R, Mina LA, Martin M, et al: Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 379:753–763. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
100	Poggio F, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, Conte B, Martel S, Maurer C, Tagliamento M, Viglietti G, Del Mastro L, de Azambuja E and Lambertini M: Single-agent PARP inhibitors for the treatment of patients with BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ESMO Open. 3:e0003612018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
101	Miller K, Tong Y, Jones DR, Walsh T, Danso MA and Ma CX; MCSSSM, : Cisplatin with or without rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple negative breast cancer: Final efficacy results of Hoosier Oncology Group BRE09-146. J Clin Oncol. 33:10822015. View Article : Google Scholar
102	Isakoff SJ, Puhalla S, Domchek SM, Friedlander M, Kaufman B, Robson M, Telli ML, Diéras V, Han HS, Garber JE, et al: A randomized phase II study of veliparib with temozolomide or carboplatin/paclitaxel versus placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel in BRCA1/2 metastatic breast cancer: Design and rationale. Future Oncol. 13:307–320. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
103	Zimmer AS, Gillard M, Lipkowitz S and Lee JM: Update on PARP inhibitors in breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 19:212018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
104	Rugo HS, Olopade OI, DeMichele A, Yau C, van't Veer LJ, Buxton MB, Hogarth M, Hylton NM, Paoloni M, Perlmutter J, et al: Adaptive randomization of veliparib-carboplatin treatment in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 375:23–34. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
105	Domchek SM, Postel-Vinay S, Im SA, Hee Park Y, Delord JP, Italiano A, Alexandre J, You B, Bastian S, Krebs MG, et al: Abstract PD5-04: An open-label, phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): Updated results in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Cancer Res. 792019.doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS18-PD5-04.
106	Tutt A, Kaufman B, Gelber RD, McFadden E, Goessl C, Viale G, Geyer G, Zardavas D, Arahmani A, Fumagalli D, et al: OlympiA: A randomized phase III trial of olaparib as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). Ann Oncol. 28:V672017. View Article : Google Scholar
107	Earl HM, Vallier AL, Qian W, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Mahmud S, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roylance R, et al: PARTNER: Randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 35:TPS5912017. View Article : Google Scholar
108	Cantley LC: The phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway. Science. 296:1655–1657. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
109	Engelman JA: Targeting PI3K signalling in cancer: Opportunities, challenges and limitations. Nat Rev Cancer. 9:550–562. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
110	Delaloge S and DeForceville L: Targeting PI3K/AKT pathway in triple-negative breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 18:1293–1294. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
111	Katso R, Okkenhaug K, Ahmadi K, White S, Timms J and Waterfield MD: Cellular function of phosphoinositide 3-kinases: Implications for development, immunity, homeostasis, and cancer. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 17:615–675. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
112	Kim SB, Dent R, Im SA, Espié M, Blau S, Tan AR, Isakoff SJ, Oliveira M, Saura C, Wongchenko MJ, et al: Ipatasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (LOTUS): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18:1360–1372. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
113	Martín M, Chan A, Dirix L, O'Shaughnessy J, Hegg R, Manikhas A, Shtivelband M, Krivorotko P, Batista López N, Campone M, et al: A randomized adaptive phase II/III study of buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel for the treatment of HER2-advanced breast cancer (BELLE-4). Ann Oncol. 28:313–320. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar
114	Schmid P, Cortes J, Robson ME, Iwata H, Hegg R, Nechaeva M, Xu B, Verma S, Haddad V, Imedio R, et al: A phase III trial of capivasertib and paclitaxel in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (CAPItello290). J Clin Oncol. 38:TPS11092020. View Article : Google Scholar
115	Schmid P, Abraham J, Chan S, Wheatley D, Brunt M, Nemsadze G, Baird R, Park YH, Hall P, Perren T, et al: AZD5363 plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (PAKT): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 36:10072018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
116	Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Green MC, Murray JL, Palla SL, Koenig KH, Valero Brewster NK; SLJKDJ, ; et al: Open label, randomized clinical trial of standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel followed by FEC (T-FEC) versus the combination of paclitaxel and RAD001 followed by FEC (TR-FEC) in women with triple receptor-negative breast cancer (TNBC). J Clin Oncol. 29:10162011. View Article : Google Scholar
117	Basho RK, Gilcrease M, Murthy RK, Helgason T, Karp DD, Meric-Bernstam F, Hess KR, Herbrich SM, Valero V, Albarracin C, et al: Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway for the treatment of mesenchymal triple-negative breast cancer: Evidence from a phase 1 trial of mTOR inhibition in combination with liposomal doxorubicin and bevacizumab. JAMA Oncol. 3:509–515. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
118	Kim Y, Jae E and Yoon M: Influence of androgen receptor expression on the survival outcomes in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer. 18:134–142. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
119	Gucalp A, Tolaney S, Isakoff SJ, Ingle JN, Liu MC, Carey LA, Blackwell K, Rugo H, Nabell L, Forero A, et al: Phase II trial of bicalutamide in patients with androgen receptor-positive, estrogen receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 19:5505–5512. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
120	Traina TA, Miller K, Yardley DA, Eakle J, Schwartzberg LS, O'Shaughnessy J, Gradishar W, Schmid P, Winer E, Kelly C, et al: Enzalutamide for the treatment of androgen receptor-expressing triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 36:884–890. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
121	Traina TA, Miller K, Yardley DA, O'Shaughnessy J, Cortes J, Kelly AACM, Trudeau ME, Schmid P, Gianni L, García-Estevez A, et al: Results from a phase 2 study of enzalutamide (ENZA), an androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor, in advanced AR+ triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). J Clin Oncol. 33:10032015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
122	Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Schafer JM, Pendleton CS, Tang L, Johnson KC, Chen X, Balko JM, Gómez H, Arteaga CL, et al: PIK3CA mutations in androgen receptor-positive triple negative breast cancer confer sensitivity to the combination of PI3K and androgen receptor inhibitors. Breast Cancer Res. 16:4062014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
123	Lehmann BD, Abramson VG, Sanders ME, Mayer EL, Haddad TC, Nanda R, Van Poznak C, Storniolo AM, Nangia JR, Gonzalez-Ericsson PI, et al: TBCRC 032 IB/II multicenter study: Molecular insights to AR antagonist and PI3K inhibitor efficacy in patients with AR+ metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 26:2111–2123. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
124	Panowski S, Bhakta S, Raab H, Polakis P and Junutula JR: Site-specific antibody drug conjugates for cancer therapy. MAbs. 6:34–45. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
125	Nejadmoghaddam MR, Minai-Tehrani A, Ghahremanzadeh R, Mahmoudi M, Dinarvand R and Zarnani AH: Antibody-drug conjugates: Possibilities and challenges. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 11:3–23. 2019.PubMed/NCBI
126	Goldenberg DM, Stein R and Sharkey RM: The emergence of trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP-2) as a novel cancer target. Oncotarget. 9:28989–29006. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
127	Bardia A, Mayer IA, Vahdat LT, Tolaney SM, Isakoff SJ, Diamond JR, O'Shaughnessy J, Moroose RL, Santin AD, Abramson VG, et al: Sacituzumab govitecan-hziy in refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 380:741–751. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
128	Liu Y, Lian W, Zhao X, Diao Y, Xu J, Xiao L, Qing Y, Xue T and Wang J: SKB264 ADC: A first-in-human study of SKB264 in patients with locally advanced unresectable/metastatic solid tumors who are refractory to available standard therapies. J Clin Oncol. 38((15_suppl)): TPS36592020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
129	Lyons TG: Targeted therapies for triple-negative breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 20:822019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
130	Giltnane JM and Balko JM: Rationale for targeting the Ras/MAPK pathway in triple-negative breast cancer. Dis Med. 17:275–283. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
131	Romanelli A, Clark A, Assayag F, Chateau-Joubert S, Poupon MF, Servely JL, Fontaine JJ, Liu X, Spooner E, Goodstal S, et al: Inhibiting aurora kinases reduces tumor growth and suppresses tumor recurrence after chemotherapy in patient-derived triple-negative breast cancer xenografts. Mol Cancer Ther. 11:2693–2703. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
132	Finn RS: Östrogenrezeptor-positiver Brustkrebs: Erfolgreiche Palbociblib-Letrozol-Kombination. Breast Cancer. 375:1925–1936. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
133	Lucantoni F, Lindner AU, O'Donovan N, Düssmann H and Prehn JH: Systems modeling accurately predicts responses to genotoxic agents and their synergism with BCL-2 inhibitors in triple negative breast cancer cells. Cell Death Dis. 9:422018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
134	Inao T, Iida Y, Moritani T, Okimoto T, Tanino R, Kotani H and Harada M: Bcl-2 inhibition sensitizes triple-negative human breast cancer cells to doxorubicin. Oncotarget. 9:25545–25556. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
135	Marra A, Viale G and Curigliano G: Recent advances in triple negative breast cancer: The immunotherapy era. BMC Med. 17:902019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
136	Weber S, Traunecker A, Oliveri F, Gerhard W and Karjalainen K: Specific low-affinity recognition of major histocompatibility complex plus peptide by soluble T-cell receptor. Nature. 356:793–796. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
137	Peggs KS, Quezada SA and Allison JP: Cancer immunotherapy: Co-stimulatory agonists and co-inhibitory antagonists. Clin Exp Immunol. 157:9–19. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
138	Planes-Laine G, Rochigneux P, Bertucci F, Chrétien A-S, Viens P, Sabatier R and Gonçalves A: PD-1/PD-L1 targeting in breast cancer: The first clinical evidences are emerging. A literature review. Cancers (Basel). 11:10332019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
139	Mahoney KM, Rennert PD and Freeman GJ: Combination cancer immunotherapy and new immunomodulatory targets. Nat Rev Drug Dis. 14:561–584. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
140	Alsaab HO, Sau S, Alzhrani R, Tatiparti K, Bhise K, Kashaw SK and Iyer AK: PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint signaling inhibition for cancer immunotherapy: Mechanism, combinations, and clinical outcome. Front Pharmacol. 8:5612017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
141	Sabatier R, Finetti P, Mamessier E, Adelaide J, Chaffanet M, Ali HR, Viens P, Caldas C, Birnbaum D and Bertucci F: Prognostic and predictive value of PDL1 expression in breast cancer. Oncotarget. 6:5449–5464. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
142	Mittendorf EA, Philips AV, Meric-Bernstam F, Qiao N, Wu Y, Harrington S, Su X, Wang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Akcakanat A, et al: PD-L1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2:361–370. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
143	Patel SP and Kurzrock R: PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 14:847–856. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
144	Schmidt M, Böhm D, Von Törne C, Steiner E, Puhl A, Pilch H, Lehr HA, Hengstler JG, Kölbl H and Gehrmann M: The humoral immune system has a key prognostic impact in node-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res. 68:5405–5413. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
145	Aguiar PN Jr, Santoro IL, Tadokoro H, de Lima Lopes G, Filardi BA, Oliveira P, Mountzios G and de Mello RA: The role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis. Immunotherapy. 8:479–488. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
146	Beckers RK, Selinger CI, Vilain R, Madore J, Wilmott JS, Harvey K, Holliday A, Cooper CL, Robbins E, Gillett D, et al: Programmed death ligand 1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer is associated with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and improved outcome. Histopathology. 69:25–34. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
147	Vagia E, Mahalingam D and Cristofanilli M: The landscape of targeted therapies in TNBC. Cancers (Basel. 12:9162020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
148	Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, Schneeweiss A, Barrios CH, Iwata H, Dieras V, Henschel V, Molinero L, Chui SY, et al: IMpassion130: Updated overall survival (OS) from a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of atezolizumab (atezo)+ nab-paclitaxel (nP) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). J Clin Oncol. 37 (Suppl 15):S10032019. View Article : Google Scholar
149	Cortés J, Lipatov O, Im SA, Gonçalves A, Lee KS, Schmid P, Tamura K, Testa L, Witzel I, Ohtani S, et al: LBA21 KEYNOTE-119: Phase III study of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus single-agent chemotherapy (chemo) for metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Ann Oncol. 30:v859–v860. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar
150	Cortes J, Guo Z, Karantza V and Aktan G: Abstract CT069: KEYNOTE-355: Randomized, double-blind, phase III study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated, locally recurrent, inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Cancer Res. 772017.doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT069.
151	Schmid P, Salgado R, Park YH, Muñoz-Couselo E, Kim SB, Sohn J, Im SA, Foukakis T, Kuemmel S, Dent R, et al: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: Results from the phase 1b open-label, multicohort KEYNOTE-173 study. Ann Oncol. 31:569–581. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
152	Barker AD, Sigman CC, Kelloff GJ, Hylton NM, Berry DA and Esserman LJ: I-SPY 2: An adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 86:97–100. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
153	Keenan TE and Tolaney SM: Role of immunotherapy in Triple-negative breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 18:479–489. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
154	Lin S and Gregory RI: MicroRNA biogenesis pathways in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 15:321–333. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
155	Qattan A: Novel miRNA targets and therapies in the triple-negative breast cancer microenvironment: An emerging Hope for a challenging disease. Int J Mol Sci. 21:89052020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
156	Si W, Shen J, Zheng H and Fan W: The role and mechanisms of action of microRNAs in cancer drug resistance. Clin Epigenetics. 11:252019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
157	Ding L, Gu H, Xiong X, Ao H, Cao J, Lin W, Yu M, Lin J and Cui Q: MicroRNAs involved in carcinogenesis, prognosis, therapeutic resistance, and applications in human triple-negative breast cancer. Cells. 8:14922019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
158	Lyng MB, Lænkholm AV, Søkilde R, Gravgaard KH, Litman T and Ditzel HJ: Global microRNA expression profiling of high-risk ER+ breast cancers from patients receiving adjuvant tamoxifen mono-therapy: A DBCG study. PLoS One. 7:e361702012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
159	Gorur A, Bayraktar R, Ivan C, Mokhlis HA, Bayraktar E, Kahraman N, Karakas D, Karamil S, Kabil NN, Kanlikilicer P, et al: ncRNA therapy with miRNA-22-3p suppresses the growth of triple-negative breast cancer. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 23:930–943. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
160	Pang Y, Liu J, Li X, Xiao G, Wang H, Yang G, Li Y, Tang SC, Qin S, Du N, et al: MYC and DNMT 3A-mediated DNA methylation represses micro RNA-200b in triple negative breast cancer. J Cell Mol Med. 22:6262–6274. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
161	Huang X, Taeb S, Jahangiri S, Emmenegger U, Tran E, Bruce J, Mesci A, Korpela E, Vesprini D, Wong CS, et al: miRNA-95 mediates radioresistance in tumors by targeting the sphingolipid phosphatase SGPP1. Cancer Res. 73:6972–6986. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
162	Tormo E, Ballester S, Adam-Artigues A, Burgués O, Alonso E, Bermejo B, Menéndez S, Zazo S, Madoz-Gúrpide J, Rovira A, et al: The miRNA-449 family mediates doxorubicin resistance in triple-negative breast cancer by regulating cell cycle factors. Sci Rep. 9:53162019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
163	Naorem LD, Muthaiyan M and Venkatesan A: Identification of dysregulated miRNAs in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis approach. J Cell Physiol. 234:11768–11779. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
164	Malla RR, Kumari S, Gavara MM, Badana AK, Gugalavath S, Kumar DKG and Rokkam P: A perspective on the diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutics of microRNAs of triple-negative breast cancer. Biophys Rev. 11:227–234. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
165	Liu Y, Cai Q, Bao PP, Su Y, Cai H, Wu J, Ye F, Guo X, Zheng W, Zheng Y and Shu XO: Tumor tissue microRNA expression in association with triple-negative breast cancer outcomes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 152:183–191. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
166	Kahraman M, Röske A, Laufer T, Fehlmann T, Backes C, Kern F, Kohlhaas J, Schrörs H, Saiz A, Zabler C, et al: MicroRNA in diagnosis and therapy monitoring of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Rep. 8:115842018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
167	Mei J, Hao L, Wang H, Xu R, Liu Y, Zhu Y and Liu C: Systematic characterization of non-coding RNAs in triple-negative breast cancer. Cell Prolif. 53:e128012020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
168	Shu D, Li H, Shu Y, Xiong G, Carson WE III, Haque F, Xu R and Guo P: Systemic delivery of anti-miRNA for suppression of triple negative breast cancer utilizing RNA nanotechnology. ACS Nano. 9:9731–9740. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
169	Yin H, Xiong G, Guo S, Xu C, Xu R, Guo P and Shu D: Delivery of anti-miRNA for triple-negative breast cancer therapy using RNA nanoparticles targeting stem cell marker CD133. Mol Ther. 27:1252–1261. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
170	Lin A, Li C, Xing Z, Hu Q, Liang K, Han L, Wang C, Hawke DH, Wang S, Zhang Y, et al: The LINK-A lncRNA activates normoxic HIF1α signalling in triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Cell Biol. 18:213–224. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
171	Yang J, Meng X, Yu Y, Pan L, Zheng Q and Lin W: LncRNA POU3F3 promotes proliferation and inhibits apoptosis of cancer cells in triple-negative breast cancer by inactivating caspase 9. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 83:1117–1123. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
172	Jiang X, Zhou Y, Sun AJ and Xue JL: NEAT1 contributes to breast cancer progression through modulating miR-448 and ZEB1. J Cell Physiol. 233:8558–8566. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
173	Ke H, Zhao L, Feng X, Xu H, Zou L, Yang Q, Su X, Peng L and Jiao B: NEAT1 is required for survival of breast cancer cells through FUS and miR-548. Gene Regul Syst Biol. 10 (Suppl 1):S11–S17. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
174	Wang LI, Liu D, Wu X, Zeng Y, Li L, Hou Y, Li W and Liu Z: Long non-coding RNA (LncRNA) RMST in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Expression analysis and biological roles research. J Cell Physiol. 233:6603–6612. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
175	Xu Q, Deng F, Qin Y, Zhao Z, Wu Z, Xing Z, Ji A and Wang QJ: Long non-coding RNA regulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis. Cell Death Dis. 7:e22542016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
176	Vaidya AM, Sun Z, Ayat N, Schilb A, Liu X, Jiang H, Sun D, Scheidt J, Qian V, He S, et al: Systemic delivery of tumor-targeting siRNA nanoparticles against an oncogenic LncRNA facilitates effective triple-negative breast cancer therapy. Bioconjug Chem. 30:907–919. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
177	Sha S, Yuan D, Liu Y, Han B and Zhong N: Targeting long non-coding RNA DANCR inhibits triple negative breast cancer progression. Biol Open. 6:1310–1316. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

July-2021
Volume 22 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Recommend to Library

Journal Metrics
Impact Factor: 2.5
Ranked Oncology
(total number of cites)
CiteScore: 5.7
CiteScore Rank: Q2: #139/404 Oncology
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.574
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.644

A, miRNA

First author, year	Names	Role in TNBC	(Refs.)
Gorur et al, 2021; Pang et al, 2018;	miR-22 and miR-200 family	Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition	(159,160)
Lyng et al, 2012	miR-190a, miR-136-5p, miR-126-5p, miR-135b-5p, miR-182-5p	Tumorigenesis	(158)
Huang et al, 2013; Tormo et al, 2019	miR-95, miR-449, and miR15a/16	Drug resistance	(161,162)

B, lncRNA

First author, year	Names	Role in TNBC	(Refs.)

Lin et al, 2016	LINKA	Glycolysis and tumorigenesis	(170)
Jiang et al, 2018; Ke et al, 2016	NEAT1	Migration, invasion and apoptosis	(172,173)
Yang et al, 2019	POU3F3	Inhibits apoptosis	(171)
Sha et al, 2017	DANCR	Inhibits apoptosis	(177)

Oncology Letters

Triple‑negative breast cancer: A run‑through of features, classification and current therapies (Review)

This article is mentioned in:

Abstract

Introduction

Histology-guided classification of TNBC

Figure 1.

Multiomics-guided molecular classification of TNBC

Table I.

Table I.

Molecular aberrations in TNBC

Figure 2.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in TNBC

Conventional mode of treatment in TNBC

Figure 3.

Emerging role of targeted therapy as a strategy to treat TNBC

PARP inhibitors for patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation

Figure 4.

Table II.

Table II.

PI3K/AKT inhibitors for PTEN low TNBC

AR inhibitors for AR-overexpressing TNBC

Antibody-drug conjugates targeting surface antigens

Inhibitors targeting other signaling pathways

Immunotherapy as monotherapy and combination therapy for TNBC

Non-coding RNA as therapy

Table III.

Table III.

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Funding

Availability of data and materials

Authors' contributions

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Patient consent for publication

Competing interests

Glossary

Abbreviations

Abbreviations:

References

Related Articles

Oncology
Letters