Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
ESMO Open · September 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
BACKGROUND: The IMpassion050 (NCT03726879) primary analysis showed similar pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with/without the addition of neoadjuvant atezolizumab to pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy in high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer in the intention-to-treat and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations. Safety was consistent with other atezolizumab combination studies. We report final analysis results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1: 1 to atezolizumab/placebo, plus pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy. Postsurgery, patients continued atezolizumab/placebo, plus pertuzumab and trastuzumab up to 1 year. Patients with residual disease could switch to trastuzumab emtansine plus atezolizumab/placebo for 14 cycles. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), event-free survival (EFS), and safety. Stratification factors were stage at diagnosis, hormone receptor (HR) status, and PD-L1 status. RESULTS: At data cut-off (24 August 2023), 411/454 patients remained on-study (atezolizumab arm, 206/226; placebo arm, 205/228). Median follow-up was 44.2 and 43.4 months, respectively. Three-year EFS rates were 91.4% (atezolizumab) versus 89.0% {placebo [stratified hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.59]}. Among patients who had surgery and postneoadjuvant therapy (n = 434), 3-year DFS rates were 92.9% (atezolizumab) versus 88.5% [placebo (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.38-1.32)]. Numerically higher 3-year EFS and DFS rates with atezolizumab were seen in patients with PD-L1-negative status, HR-positive status, and stage T2 disease. Numerical DFS improvements with atezolizumab occurred regardless of pCR. Adverse events (AEs) of special interest in the adjuvant setting were more frequent with atezolizumab (59.4% versus 47.0%; none grade 5). The most common AEs (≥10% of patients in either arm) were radiation skin injury (24.0% versus 19.4%), arthralgia (20.7% versus 17.1%), and diarrhea (20.7% versus 13.4%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant improvements in 3-year EFS (stratified hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.59) or DFS (unstratified hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.38-1.32) rates with the addition of atezolizumab. Safety remained consistent with the known profiles of the study drugs.