ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
Does T1c-2N0-1M0 triple negative breast cancer derive a benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy?
Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- C-type lectin domain family 3 member B (CLEC3B) inhibits triple-negative breast cancer chemoresistance via inducing ferroptosis.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Nomogram for the prediction of the prognosis of patients with triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma of breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is a standard approach for operable triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), the potential risks brought by it should also be noticed. Is the expanding indication of NCT to T1cN0M0 population appropriate? We conducted an investigation to compare the long-term survival of small tumor TNBC between NCT and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT).
methodsFor this propensity-matched analysis, we used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We enrolled 1183 cases with NCT and 2550 cases with ACT who are AJCC clinical T1c-T2 N0-N1, diagnosed with invasive triple-negative breast cancer, from 2016 to 2017. The propensity score matching was utilized to minimize baseline characteristics bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard regression model.
resultsCompared with patients receiving ACT, patients with NCT in this study presented a higher proportion of younger age, T2 stage, N1 stage, and underwent more mastectomy. Multivariate analysis in matched patients showed that NCT had no significant survival benefit compared with ACT in T1c-2N0-1M0 TNBC patients. Stratified analyses by T stage and N stage demonstrated NCT mainly presented a survival advantage in patients with N1 stage. Further investigation found that NCT didn't improve BCSS (HR, 0.472; 95% CI 0.135-1.647; P = 0.239) and OS (HR, 0.392; 95% CI 0.147-1.047; P = 0.062) for patients with T1cN0M0 TNBC; however, it was associated with improved OS (HR, 1.951; 95% CI 1.003-3.797; P = 0.049) only for patients with T2N1M0 TNBC.
conclusionsIn this study, we did not find any profit brought by NCT in the stage I and stage IIa cohorts, but even more unfavorable outcomes appeared in the T1cN0M0 cohort. Therefore, whether the candidates of NCT should be extended to T1cN0M0 still need to be cautious.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.