Adjuvant Capecitabine in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients with Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Treatment: Real-world Evidence from , a Multicentric, Observational Study

Background: In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available.

Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

Results: Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles.

Conclusion: The study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research.