Cited by 105Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Open access

Abstract

On July 26, 2021, the FDA granted approval to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then continued as a single agent for adjuvant treatment following surgery for patients with high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Approval was based on results from KEYNOTE-522, an ongoing randomized (2:1) trial evaluating pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then as a single agent for adjuvant treatment. The co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate and event-free survival (EFS). The trial demonstrated an improvement in pCR and EFS in the pembrolizumab arm compared with the control arm. The number of patients who experienced an EFS event was 123 (16%) and 93 (24%), respectively [HR: 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48–0.82, P = 0.00031]. Patients on the pembrolizumab arm experienced EFS benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 status. The absolute pCR rate improvement with the addition of pembrolizumab was 7.5% (95% CI, 1.6–13.4). Among patients receiving pembrolizumab, 44% experienced an immune-related adverse reaction. This article summarizes FDA's review of pembrolizumab and the data supporting the favorable benefit–risk assessment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-22-1110

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy have limited efficacy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

    “However, the efficacy of these antibodies particularly as monotherapy was limited in the treatment of RRMM [173–176].”

    From Multiple myeloma: signaling pathways and targeted therapy (2024) · cites this paper as [174]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Sikov, 2019, CALGB (Alliance) 40603: Long-term outcomes (LTOs) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) ± carboplatin (Cb) and bevacizumab (Bev) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), J Clin Oncol, 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.591 · DOI
  2. Masuda, 2017, Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy, N Engl J Med, 376, 2147, 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645 · DOI
  3. Amiri-Kordestani, 2014, First FDA approval of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: pertuzumab for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, Clin Cancer Res, 20, 5359, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1268 · DOI
  4. Cortazar, 2014, Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis, Lancet, 384, 164, 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 · DOI
  5. Huang, 2020, Evaluation of pathologic complete response as a surrogate for long-term survival outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer, J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 18, 1096, 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7550 · DOI
  6. Royce, 2022, FDA approval summary: abemaciclib with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer, J Clin Oncol, 40, 1155, 10.1200/JCO.21.02742 · DOI
  7. Yau, 2022, Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: a multicentre pooled analysis of 5161 patients, Lancet Oncol, 23, 149, 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00589-1 · DOI
  8. von Minckwitz, 2018, Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 380, 617, 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017 · DOI
  9. Prowell, 2019, Residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy—developing drugs for high-risk early breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 380, 612, 10.1056/NEJMp1900079 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shah, M., Osgood, C. L., Amatya, A. K., Fiero, M. H., Pierce, W. F., Nair, A., Herz, J., Robertson, K. J., Mixter, B. D., Tang, S., Pazdur, R., Beaver, J. A., & Amiri-Kordestani, L.
Affiliations
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • 1Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Corresponding author
Shah, Mirat
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2022-08-04
Volume
28
Issue
24
Pages
5249-5253
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W4289780812
Cited by
105
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 2
FWCI
8.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Advanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Keywords
pembrolizumab, triple-negative breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, early breast cancer, PD-L1, immune checkpoint inhibitors, combination chemotherapy, pathological complete response, event-free survival, immune-related adverse events, FDA drug approval, KEYNOTE-522
MeSH terms
Progression-Free Survival, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Humans, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized, Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review