Clinical Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Tumor Immune Microenvironment Analysis: A Prospective-Retrospective Cohort Study
- Journal
- MedComm (Q1)
- Published
- 17 August 2026
- Study design
- Prospective / inception cohort
- Evidence level
- Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2b)
- Authors
- Yongsheng Wang, Pengfei Qiu, Yuechen Wang, Xingchen Meng, Jiaxin Zhang, Haiqiang Liu, et al.
- PMID
- 42609520
- DOI
- 10.1002/mco2.70924
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Breast and Endocrine Surgery (paper of the day, 19 August 2026).
Abstract
The impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on surgical outcomes and immune remodeling remains underexplored. To investigate the efficacy and tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) changes of camrelizumab plus NAC for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), we collected TNBC patients receiving neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NIC) or NAC from clinical trials and routine practice, and set a series of endpoints, including total pathological complete response (pCR), breast pCR and TIME characteristics. After propensity score matching, the NIC cohort showed significantly higher rates of total pCR, breast pCR, and axillary pCR, and a lower rate of axillary lymph node dissection than the NAC cohort (all p < 0.05). Within the NIC group, patients achieving total pCR (p = 0.012) or breast pCR (p = 0.0078) had superior disease-free survival. Analysis of TIME characteristics indicated that the 7 TIME signatures, including tumor inflammation signature, antigen processing machinery and T cell-related features, could predict pCR response to NIC. The finding suggested that in TNBC, NIC enhances pCR achievement and reduces axillary dissection risk. Elevated TIME profiles of the 7 signatures may predict favorable pCR response to NIC.
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.