LeVee, Alexis

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype characterized by lack of estrogen receptor expression, progesterone receptor expression, and human epidermal growth factor 2 overexpression/amplification. Given its generally aggressive biology, current guidelines recommend systemic therapy for most patients, with anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens being historically preferred. However, the clinical outcomes of patients with stage I TNBC and the benefit (or lack thereof) of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy have not been prospectively evaluated as this population has largely been excluded from prospective randomized clinical trials. As such, management decisions for stage I TNBC are typically extrapolated from trials enrolling patients with stage II or III TNBC or based on retrospective analyses. Currently, the primary factor influencing systemic therapy decisions is the anatomic stage, without other biomarkers clinically used to guide systemic therapy. This review summarizes the existing evidence supporting current and emerging systemic therapy strategies for stage I TNBC, with a special focus on treatment de-escalation and promising biomarkers that can advance personalized treatment selection.

The treatment paradigm of stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is rapidly evolving, with the recent incorporation of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improving disease outcomes. Nevertheless, almost one in five patients with early-stage TNBC will relapse in 5 years, underscoring an urgent need to identify and improve outcomes for those at high risk of recurrence. Novel therapeutic strategies including antibody-drug conjugates, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, dual immune checkpoint blockade, and locoregional therapies to augment the antitumor immune response are being investigated in clinical trials. Biomarker strategies including tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, immune signatures, and circulating tumor DNA are being explored to identify patients at a high risk of relapse and to predict treatment response. In this article, we review recent advances in the management of stage II to III TNBC, highlight emerging investigational therapies and combinations, and explore novel biomarker strategies aimed at personalizing the care for patients with stage II to III TNBC.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the lack of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression. Historically, treatment options for TNBC have been limited, because of the absence of actionable targets. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy improved outcomes for a subset of patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive disease; however, a critical need for more effective therapies remains. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been a promising advance in the management of advanced TNBC and are reshaping the landscape as they move earlier into the treatment algorithm. A greater understanding of the molecular heterogeneity of TNBC has enabled the pursuit of more targeted and personalized therapeutic strategies. Despite this, TNBC continues to have the least favorable outcomes compared with other breast cancer subtypes. This review highlights current evidence and future challenges in advanced TNBC, including optimizing therapeutic sequencing and the ongoing need for predictive biomarkers and novel agents.

Abstract Introduction: Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) is a rare, aggressive subtype of breast cancer that has limited evidence-based data to guide treatment. Historically, MpBC has had limited response to chemotherapy; however, the response of MpBC to antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) remains poorly characterized. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) with pathologic diagnosis of MpBC who received ADC therapy as part of standard of care in the metastatic setting across 4 NCI-designated cancer centers. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at time of best response to ADC & real world PFS (rwPFS) of ADC compared to non-ADC therapy, defined as time from treatment start to time of progression or death. Results: We identified 48 pts with MpBC who received at least one ADC between 3/2016 and 10/2025. Median age was 54 years (range 31-77); all pts were biological females. Most pts had triple negative disease (n=39, 81%), 5 (10%) had HER2+ disease, 3 (6%) had hormone receptor positive disease & 17 (35%) were confirmed HER2-low (IHC 1+ or 2+, ISH nonamplified). The most common MpBC subtypes were with squamous differentiation (n=17, 35%), chondroid (n=11, 23%), matrix-producing (n=11, 23%) & spindle cell differentiation (n=10, 21%). Ten pts (21%) had de novo metastatic disease & 38 (79%) had recurrent disease. Most common metastatic sites were lung (n=33, 69%) & liver (21, 44%). 37/38 (97%) patients had curative intent anthracycline & taxane, with median disease-free interval of 16 months (range 2-241). 18 pts (38%) received curative intent immune checkpoint inhibitor. Most pts received ADC in the first (n=19, 40%) or second line (n=18, 38%) with Sacituzumab govitecan being the most common (n=38, 79%) ADC, followed by Trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=9, 19%). 7 pts (15%) received a second ADC. ORR at time of best response was 38% (n=18), with 4 pts experiencing complete response (1 patient who received ADC in 1L, 3 in the 2L) & 14 experiencing partial response. 3 pts (6%) experienced stable disease, & 27 pts (56%) experienced progressive disease as best response. Median rwPFS of pts receiving ADC in the first line was 2.3 months, compared to 4.3 months in those receiving non-ADC/chemotherapy (HR 1.34; 95% CI 0.72-2.49, p=0.89). Median rwPFS of pts receiving ADC in the second line was 2.6 months, compared to 2.3 months in those receiving non-ADC/chemotherapy (HR 0.56; 0.28-1.11; p=0.10). Toxicity resulted in dose reductions in 17 pts (35%), dose delays in 14 (29%), & ADC discontinuation in 2 (4%). Conclusion: In this multi-institutional cohort of pts with metastatic MpBC, ADC treatment yielded a 38% ORR, including four complete responses. However, rwPFS was poor overall & similar between ADC & non-ADC therapy. These findings highlight the need to develop new treatment strategies for MpBC, though a subset of pts may experience meaningful response to ADC. Citation Format: S. Jacob, S. Premji, S. Fisch, A. LeVee, S. Marion, D. Schmolze, J. Mortimer, L. Huppert, D. Idossa, A. Nayak, P. Wileyto, A. DeMichele, P. D. Shah. Efficacy of antibody drug conjugates in patients with advanced metaplastic breast cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-09-18.

Abstract Introduction: Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) represents a rare subtype, constituting <1% of all breast cancer cases. It is pathologically characterized by epithelial and mesenchymal cellular components exhibiting a basal molecular pattern, hormone receptor and HER2-negativity, and high grade. Clinically, MpBC exhibits an aggressive course with early disease progression and poor survival. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been shown to penetrate the central nervous system (CNS); however, little is known about the response of ADCs in MpBC, particularly in patients with CNS disease. Here we aimed to describe features of CNS disease in a subset of patients (pts) who received an ADC for MpBC . Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective observational study of pts with advanced MpBC treated with ADCs at 4 NCI-designated cancer centers (abstract #A-345). This analysis includes a subset of this cohort with CNS metastases, with the aim of examining the incidence, characteristics, and treatment patterns. Clinical outcomes were evaluated for pts with information available, including CNS median progression-free survival (mPFS; defined from initiation of systemic therapy to time of further documented CNS progression or death) and median real world PFS (rwPFS; defined from time of treatment initiation to documented disease progression or death). Results: We identified 48 pts with MpBC who received an ADC. Among them, we identified 15 (31%) who developed CNS metastases. Of these, the majority (n=11, 73%) had triple-negative breast cancer, and 4 (27%) had HER2-positive breast cancer. The median age was 50 years (32-75 years). The median interval from the initial MpBC diagnosis to CNS metastasis was 13 months (0-54 months). Excluding those with de novo CNS disease, the median interval from time of metastatic diagnosis to development of CNS metastasis [mets] was 3 months (0-22 months). 4 (27%) pts had de-novo metastatic disease, of which 2 (50%) presented with CNS disease. 4 (27%) pts had screening CNS imaging prior to their diagnosis of CNS metastatic disease. At the time of CNS disease diagnosis, 9 (60%) pts had oligometastatic intraparenchymal CNS disease (defined as <5 CNS mets), 5 (33%) had diffuse (>5 CNS mets) CNS disease, and 1 (6%) had leptomeningeal and intraparenchymal disease. Most pts 14(93%) with CNS disease were symptomatic at time of diagnosis. One pt underwent resection, 9 (60%) underwent stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), 6 (40%) underwent whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), and 1 pt received intrathecal chemotherapy with methotrexate. The median number of lines in the metastatic setting prior to documented CNS disease was 1 (range 0-3). The majority 13 (87%) underwent a change in systemic therapy at time of CNS disease diagnosis, with 60% changing to an ADC at the time of CNS diagnosis or progression. Among pts with progression of CNS disease warranting change in systemic therapy, the median time from first CNS event to further CNS progression was 6.5 months. Median CNS PFS was 3.5 months (range 1 -74 months) and median rwPFS was 4.4 months. For those patients who used ADCs after diagnosis of metastatic CNS diagnosis (12/15), median rwPFS was 4 months. Conclusions: Within this CNS sub-cohort study, we found that 31% of pts with MpBC developed CNS metastasis. The majority of pts had neurological symptoms at diagnosis, but most pts did not undergo routing screening for CNS disease. Given the high rate of CNS mets within a short timeframe from diagnosis with poor outcomes, CNS screening should be considered. The extremely short median CNS PFS and low median rwPFS of this cohort highlight the guarded prognosis associated with MpBC. Given the small sample size of this cohort, larger studies are warranted to validate these findings. Citation Format: S. Premji, S. Jacob, A. LeVee, S. Marion, S. Fisch, L. Huppert, J. Mortimer, D. Schmolze, A. Nayak, A. DeMichele, P. Shah, R. Leon-Ferre, D. Idossa. Central nervous system disease in patients with metaplastic breast cancer receiving antibody drug conjugates: a multi-institutional study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-09-07.

1015 Background: T-DXd is an antibody-drug conjugate approved for advanced HER2+/low/ultra-low breast cancer and multiple other solid tumors. T-DXd carries a rare but serious risk of ILD (incidence 12-15%), requiring frequent imaging and symptom evaluation. For > grade (G) 2 ILD, guidelines recommend permanent drug discontinuation. For asymptomatic G1 ILD, drug is held with the option for rechallenge (RC) if imaging findings resolve. Limited data exist on outcomes of RC after ILD in diverse real-world patients (pts). Methods: In this multi-center retrospective study, we analyzed pts with T-DXd related ILD treated from 2017-2024. Pts with ILD were identified via chart/ICD code review. Adjudication of T-DXd related ILD was based on treating providers’ assessment and graded via CTCAE v5. We collected pt demographics, T-DXd and steroid dosing, imaging results, and outcomes after RC. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Four centers treated 712 pts with T-DXd, with a 9.1% rate of any grade ILD (n=65). One other center reported only RC data in 18 pts with ILD. In total, 47 pts were RC; 38 after G1 ILD (81%), 9 after G2. Median (med) time to initial ILD was 145 days (d) after 1st dose (interquartile range [IQR] 78-205). Demographics for pts RC are shown in the table. Among 50 pts with G1 ILD, including pts not RC, 28/50 (56%) received steroids for a med of 36d (IQR 27-79). Radiographic improvement was seen at a med of 24d (IQR 19-63) for pts treated with steroids vs 82d (IQR 48-94) without (p<0.01); and a med of 35d (IQR 22-82) for pts RC vs 81d (IQR 68-105) for pts not RC (p=0.01). Among pts with G1 ILD, 38/50 (76%) were RC at a med of 42d (IQR 36-57) from last dose; 23/38 (61%) were dose reduced. After RC, pts remained on T-DXd for a med of 215d (IQR 60-334); 10/38 (26%) developed recurrent ILD (7-G1, 2-G2, 1-G3) at a med of 211d (IQR 47-273) from RC. No statistically significant differences were seen between ILD onset, time to RC, or demographics for pts with recurrent ILD vs not. Of the 9 pts RC after G2 ILD, T-DXd was continued for a med of 129d (IQR 49-171); 2/9 (22%) developed recurrent ILD (1-G2, 1-G3). No G5 toxicity was seen with RC. Conclusions: In this multi-center study, high RC rates were seen after G1 ILD with long duration of clinical benefit. Pts treated with steroids had faster radiographic ILD improvement, highlighting the importance of early steroid use. Among pts RC after G1 ILD, recurrent ILD rates were low, with the majority G1 and no G5 events. Notably, 9 pts with G2 ILD were RC, with a similar rate of recurrent ILD; this must be interpreted cautiously. Our large cohort data further supports the safety of T-DXd RC in diverse real-world settings. RC Pt Characteristics (n=47) n (%) or Median (IQR) Cancer typeBreastGIGyn 43 (91)3 (6)1 (2) Age (yrs) 57 (52-68) Prior # therapy lines in the advanced/metastatic setting 3 (1-5) Renal impairment (CrCl < 60 mL/min) 8 (17)