Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Review of Current Curative Intent Therapies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript gives a good perspective of the existing treatments for TNBC, and the cited sources are up to date. I only have minor comments that the authors may be willing to address before publishing.

1) First two sentences in the Abstract and Introduction are almost identical. Please re word.

2) Capecitabine, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, ipatasertib, enzalutamide, abiraterone: please include short description what exactly each drug is chemically and/or biologically, and possibly a short mechanism of its action.

3) The paper would benefit greatly if the authors, in addition to the text, will summarize the data into one or few tables, arranging it by type of treatment, including information from the manuscripts cited. The examples of these tables can be found in many reviews similar to this one, and in my opinion it improves convenience of the information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The commentary by MacDonald and collaborators is a nice summary of current curative therapies against triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs), which is a highly heterogeneous group of tumors that probably needs personalized treatments to improve the outcome and minimize the treatment toxicity.  It summarizes data from ongoing and closed clinical trials based on the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. At the end the possible crucial role of circulating tumor DNA as a prognostic and predictive value is treated, such as the development and use of new inhibitors rather than the PARP inhibitors that plays a critical role in the adjuvant setting.

The manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner..

Minor comments:

1) the first two lines of the introduction are identical to the first two lines of the abstract and many concepts are repeated in the two sections. I suggest shortening the abstract by clarifying the aim of the commentary, which in my opinion is contained at the end of the introduction (lines 38-39), and use the introduction section to describe TNBC features.

2) I would suggest citing for each clinical trial cited the NCT number, as done, for some of the studies cited.

3) In line 174 add ) after placebo

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf