”New advances in the treatment of “triple negative” breast carcinoma (TNBC) refers to breast cancer with negative expression of ER, PR and HER2. Based on the results of genomic analysis and biological characteristics, breast cancers can be classified into four groups: estrogen receptor positive/ductal group (ER+/Luminal group), normal breast group, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive group (HER-2+ group), and basal-like group. like group). Eighty-five percent of the basal-like group are TNBCs, with a small proportion still expressing at least one of ER, PR, and HER-2. TNBC is highly invasive, highly malignant, prone to metastasis and recurrence, and has a poor prognosis, and its treatment options are limited compared to other breast cancers due to the lack of endocrine therapy and molecular targeting of HER-2. Three reports on TNBC were presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Clinical Oncology (ESMO). According to data from the Mexican National Institute of Oncology, TNBC accounted for 23.1% of the 2,074 Latin American breast cancer patients admitted between 1998 and 2008, which is higher than the incidence of TNBC in Caucasians, considering whether it is due to ethnicity. In contrast, as early as 2008 Comen et al. reported 495 Jewish breast cancer patients, of whom TNBC accounted for 13.1%, and its close association with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. African American women account for 24% of breast cancer incidence and 33% of mortality in the United States. In 2009, Dezheng Huo reported on the incidence of breast cancer in West African women and found that the basal cell-like type had the highest incidence of 27%, higher than postmenopausal African-Americans (15%) , premenopausal European Americans (15%), and other populations (10%). Our own Lin Jian et al. recently published the results of a retrospective analysis of a study in which 13.9% of the 407 patients enrolled were TNBC, with a high prevalence in a population of patients with a family history. Combined with the profile on the incidence of TNBC in Mexican Latin American women published in this conference, it can be concluded that whether there are racial differences in the incidence of TNBC remains controversial and further in-depth studies on its pathogenesis are needed. In addition, patients with TNBC are more likely to have local recurrence and a worse prognosis, a finding that has remained consistent across studies. Many studies have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, and palliative chemotherapy can provide survival benefits for patients with triple negative breast cancer. The treatment of advanced TNBC is mainly based on chemotherapy, which is relatively more sensitive than other types of breast cancer because of its insensitivity to hormonal therapy and lack of exact therapeutic targets, and therefore relatively more sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, its prognosis remains poor if only conventional standard treatment is given. The other two papers in this conference are about the treatment of TNBC. Roché et al. reported a retrospective analysis of Ixabepilone and capecitabine for TNBC. One phase III clinical study of capecitabine alone or in combination with Ixabepilone and two phase II clinical studies of Ixabepilone alone (studies 080 and 081) were included. Data from the phase III clinical study showed that the ORR, median PFS, 1.7 months (95% CI 1.5 to 2.4) and 4.2 months (95% CI 3.6 to 4.4) of capecitabine alone or in combination with isapirone in patients with anthracycline- and paclitaxel-resistant metastatic TNBC were 15% and 31%, respectively. In contrast, in the 081 study, the ORR and median PFS of isapirone monotherapy were 12% and 2.7 months (95% CI 1.5 to 5.9), respectively, in anthracycline, paclitaxel and capecitabine-resistant patients with metastatic TNBC. These data suggest that capecitabine combined with isapirone is more effective than capecitabine monotherapy in the treatment of anthracycline- and paclitaxel-resistant metastatic TNBC. In contrast, single-agent isapirone for anthracycline-, paclitaxel-, and capecitabine-resistant metastatic TNBC also appears to benefit patients in terms of median PFS, but this remains to be further investigated. In addition, the current results of the 080 study showed an ORR of 64% for isapirone monotherapy in neoadjuvant TNBC. The local pCR rate in the breast was higher in TNBC than in “non-triple negative” breast cancer (26% vs. 15%). This result is generally consistent with other studies that have shown that neoadjuvant therapy is more effective in TNBC than in “non-triple negative” breast cancer. Several studies have shown that in TNBC, a pCR with neoadjuvant therapy is indicative of an improved prognosis for patients. Therefore, although survival-related data such as median PFS were not reported, the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment with isapirone alone in TNBC is worthy of our expectation. In terms of safety, the main side effects of treatment are sensory neuropathy and neutropenia. Sensory neuropathy was mild, with only one patient with metastatic TNBC receiving capecitabine in combination with isapirone experiencing grade 4 side effects. Grade 3/4 neutropenic side effects, on the other hand, occurred at a higher rate of 70% in patients treated with capecitabine in combination with isapirone. However, overall the treatment is still safe and manageable. Targeted chemotherapy remains the predominant treatment for TNBC, but there is no standard treatment regimen. Anthracyclines and paclitaxel play an important role in the treatment of TNBC, but their efficacy in TNBC is not better than that of “non-triple negative” breast cancer. The use of platinum-based agents in TNBC has received renewed attention after preclinical and clinical data showed significant activity of platinum-based agents in the treatment of TNBC, improving sensitivity and response rates. Studies have also indicated that TNBC patients with BRCA1 mutations are sensitive to platinum-based therapy. In addition, some studies suggest that capecitabine is more effective than hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients in the treatment of TNBC. And in all types of breast cancer, most studies have shown that capecitabine-based combination therapy is more effective than single-agent capecitabine therapy. In this conference, Roché et al. reported that capecitabine combined with isapirone was more effective than capecitabine alone in TNBC. Ixabepilone, a new agent in breast cancer chemotherapy in recent years, binds to microtubulin, inhibits tumor cell mitosis and promotes apoptosis. The mechanism of action is similar to that of paclitaxel, but has stronger activity due to a different site of action. Single-agent isapirone achieved a high ORR in neoadjuvant therapy of TNBC, showing the promising application of isapirone in neoadjuvant therapy of TNBC. Also, Roché et al. reported a subgroup analysis of the phase II clinical trial SOLTI-0701, in which patients with HER-2 negative breast cancer and no more than one course of chemotherapy were randomized into two groups: capecitabine in combination with sorafenib in the trial group and capecitabine in combination with placebo in the control group, with the primary endpoint of PFS. The total number of TNBC cases in both groups was 53 (20 in the trial group and 33 in the control group). The median PFS was 4.3 months vs. 2.5 months, however, the incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was significantly higher in the trial group than in the control group (75% vs. 48%), particularly for hand-foot syndrome (40% vs. 15%). Subgroup analysis showed that the sorafenib combined with capecitabine treatment group was superior to the capecitabine combined with placebo group in terms of improved PFS with mild and manageable side effects. However, because this was only a subgroup analysis with a small number of cases, a phase III clinical study of sorafenib in combination with capecitabine for advanced breast cancer was initiated this year. In recent years, studies have shown that the combination of molecularly targeted therapy and chemotherapy can achieve better efficacy in the treatment of TNBC. However, clinical studies of single-stage molecular targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of TNBC are still relatively few, and data from subgroup analyses are now mostly seen. The TNBC subgroup analysis reported by Roché et al. in this conference suggested that sorafenib combined with capecitabine was better than capecitabine combined with placebo for treatment with a good safety profile. This provides a new therapeutic strategy for the clinical treatment of TNBC.