Back

A Real-World Retrospective Study of Sintilimab in Combination with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Gao, Z.; Liang, H.; Bai, X.; Dong, K.; Li, J.; Qiao, W.; Shan, B.; Chen, X.; Tang, J.

2026-04-07 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.02.26349910 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) combined with the programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor sintilimab versus NAC alone in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we collected clinical data from 61 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who received neoadjuvant therapy at The First Hospital of Lanzhou University between July 2024 and July 2025. These patients were divided into two groups: the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) plus sintilimab group (n=27) and the NAC-alone group (n=34). The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response (pCR) rate. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), safety, and changes in tumor markers. Results The combination therapy group showed significantly higher ORR (85.2% vs. 58.8%) and pCR rates (59.3% vs. 32.4%) compared to the NAC alone group (both P<0.05). Post-treatment Ki-67 levels were also significantly lower in the combination group (P<0.05). The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups (P>0.05), although leukopenia was more frequent with sintilimab (P<0.05). Conclusion In the neoadjuvant setting for TNBC, the addition of sintilimab to NAC significantly improves ORR and pCR rates, effectively reduces the tumor proliferation index Ki-67, and does not significantly increase the overall burden of adverse events. The combination regimen shows a manageable safety profile and demonstrates positive clinical value. Keywords Triple Negative Breast Cancer, Immunotherapy, Sintilimab, Combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Efficacy, Real-World data.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
14.3%
3
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.1%
4
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
5
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
9
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.6%
10
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
12
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
13
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Gene Reports
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
17
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
19
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
20
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
23
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Molecular Biology Reports
19 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
27
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%