In a landmark trial, scientists achieved a 100% survival rate for high-risk breast cancer by rethinking not just what drugs to use — but exactly when to use them.
Key Points at a Glance
- A new treatment combo achieved 100% survival after three years in BRCA-related breast cancer
- It combines chemotherapy and olaparib, a targeted cancer drug, before surgery
- A crucial 48-hour timing gap between treatments enhances effectiveness
- The approach may reduce relapse, toxicity, and treatment costs
For patients facing aggressive, inherited breast cancers, time is not just precious — it may be the key to survival. In a breakthrough clinical trial led by the University of Cambridge and Addenbrooke’s Hospital, researchers have shown that carefully timed treatment using existing drugs can dramatically improve outcomes — even achieving an unprecedented 100% survival rate after three years in a high-risk patient group.
Published in Nature Communications, the study focused on early-stage breast cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations — the same mutations that prompted actress Angelina Jolie to undergo preventive surgery in 2013. These genetic variants are notorious for their aggressive progression and resistance to standard therapies.
But instead of radically new drugs, researchers tried a simple shift in protocol. The Partner trial introduced two key innovations: administering chemotherapy followed by the targeted drug olaparib before surgery, and spacing the treatments 48 hours apart.
The result? Out of 39 patients on this regimen, not a single one died within three years of surgery, and only one experienced a relapse.
By contrast, in the control group of 45 patients who received only chemotherapy, six deaths and nine relapses were recorded.
“It is rare to have a 100% survival rate in a study like this and for these aggressive types of cancer,” said Professor Jean Abraham, the trial’s lead researcher and a specialist in precision breast cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge. “We’re incredibly excited about the potential of this new approach.”
Olaparib, a tablet-based PARP inhibitor, is already approved and available through the NHS, typically prescribed after surgery for up to a year. In the trial, patients took it before surgery, for just 12 weeks. This not only delivered better outcomes, but could significantly reduce side effects and healthcare costs.
The key, it seems, lies in the timing. Introducing a 48-hour gap between chemotherapy and olaparib gives healthy bone marrow cells a chance to recover, while leaving vulnerable tumor cells open to attack. It’s a subtle tweak with major impact.
The timing idea arose from a “chance conversation,” according to Abraham, with Mark O’Connor, chief scientist in oncology R&D at AstraZeneca — a moment of scientific serendipity that’s now redefining treatment paradigms.
The trial represents a uniquely collaborative effort between the NHS, academia, and industry. Patients were enrolled across 23 UK hospitals, and the work was supported by Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.
Patient stories like that of Jackie Van Bochoven bring the data to life. Diagnosed in 2019 with an aggressive tumor, she joined the Partner trial. Six years later, she’s cancer-free, back at work, and cherishing every day. “When you’ve had cancer,” she said, “I think you look at life differently.”
Beyond breast cancer, this treatment strategy may apply to other BRCA-linked diseases — including some ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Its broader value lies in how it demonstrates that smarter use of existing therapies, not just new drug development, can transform outcomes.
Michelle Mitchell, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK, called the findings “an exciting discovery,” adding: “Research like this can help find safer and kinder ways to treat certain types of cancer.”
The team is already planning a larger follow-up study to confirm the safety and cost-effectiveness of the approach on a broader scale.
It’s a reminder that medical innovation doesn’t always require new tools. Sometimes, the breakthrough comes in using the same tools differently — and more wisely.
Source: University of Cambridge
