Cemiplimab and Fianlimab With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Early-Stage High-Risk ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer: The I-SPY2 Randomized Clinical Trial
In brief
Dual checkpoint blockade raises complete response to 44% vs 21% with chemo
Adding cemiplimab and fianlimab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy more than doubled pathologic complete response rates in high-risk ERBB2-negative breast cancer (44% versus 21% overall; 53% vs 29% in triple-negative disease). About one-fifth of patients developed adrenal insufficiency, and the benefit was strongest in tumors with a positive ImPrint immune signature.
- Journal
- JAMA oncology (Q1)
- Published
- 30 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Claudine Isaacs, Rita Nanda, Christina Yau, A Jo Chien, Dawn L Hershman, Erica M Stringer-Reasor, et al.
- PMID
- 42530945
- DOI
- 10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.2576
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Immunology and Allergy (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Although adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes in high-risk early-stage breast cancer, opportunities remain to further enhance response. Dual checkpoint blockade offers a potential strategy to further enhance efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the combination of anti-programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) cemiplimab and anti-lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) added to neoadjuvant therapy in ERBB2-negative early-stage, high-risk breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The I-SPY2 (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response With Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2) is an ongoing randomized clinical platform trial being conducted at multiple US clinical sites including patients with early-stage (II or III) ERBB2-negative, high-risk breast cancer. Participants, continuously enrolled since 2010, were adaptively randomized from February 2, 2020, to December 9, 2021, to one of several experimental neoadjuvant therapies or control groups based on receptor subtypes defined by hormone receptor (HR), ERBB2 status, and MammaPrint (Agendia Inc) molecular risk, categorized as high (MP1) or ultrahigh (MP2). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2022, to August 5, 2025. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks, then doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by surgery; concomitant with paclitaxel, the intervention group also received 4 doses of cemiplimab and fianlimab (PCF) every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pathologic complete response (pCR). Treatments graduated when they achieved 85% bayesian probability of success in a subtype-specific phase 3 trial. Pathway-specific biomarkers were assessed for response prediction. RESULTS: A total of 78 participants (mean [SD] age, 47 [39-54] years) were randomized to the intervention group, with 350 participants (mean [SD] age, 48 [39-57] years) randomized to the historical control population. PCF graduated in all clinical signatures, with pCR rates vs control of 44% (95% CI, 34%-53%) vs 21% (95% CI, 17%-25%) in all ERBB2, 53% (95% CI, 39%-67%) vs 29% (95% CI, 22%-36%) in triple-negative, and 36% (95% CI, 23%-49%) vs 14% (95% CI, 9%-19%) in HR-positive and ERBB2-negative disease. Among the total participants, 16 (21%) experienced adrenal insufficiency, including hypophysitis (11% grade 3 or 4), mostly occurring after immunotherapy completion. PCF was found to be highly effective in the subset of patients with immune signature positive status (ImPrint positive). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, the combination of PD-1 and anti-LAG-3 inhibition with standard NAC was effective in early-stage ERBB2-negative breast cancer, particularly in patients displaying a positive ImPrint immune signature. These results warrant further definitive trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01042379.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.