ReviewInternational journal of oncology2025
Molecular targets and therapies associated with poor prognosis of triple‑negative breast cancer (Review).
Review in International journal of oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast Cancer: Epidemiology, Molecular Classification, Diagnostics and Evolving Treatment Paradigms.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Recent Progress in Exosome-Derived Nanocarriers for Breast Cancer Therapy: Advances, Translational Barriers, and Scale-Up Considerations.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Review
- Article
- Bioactive glass nanoparticles induce intrinsic p53-dependent apoptosis and promote genomic instability via ROS overproduction and mitochondrial depolarization in triple-negative breast cancer cells.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Xiao Chai Hu Tang-derived decoction (Tung-Yi Fang) suppresses triple negative breast cancer cellsFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Analysis of tumor protein p53 expression levels in different stages of breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Triple‑negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a highly aggressive and heterogeneous subtype of BC characterized by the absence of estrogen, progesterone and human EGFR2 receptors. This lack of receptors renders it unresponsive to standard targeted therapies. Despite advances made in understanding the molecular landscape of TNBC, its poor prognosis and high recurrence rates underscore the urgent need for innovative therapeutic approaches. This review explores the effects of key prognostic markers, such as Ki‑67, programmed cell death ligand 1, BRCA1/2 mutations, E‑cadherin loss and EGFR alterations. It also examines critical pathways, including the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and mutant p53 pathways, which are prerequisites for TNBC progression and therapy resistance, and discusses the therapeutic potential of directly targeting these key molecules and their associated signaling pathways. In addition, recent advances in targeted therapies were highlighted, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the statuses of emerging strategies were presented, such as chimeric antigen receptor‑T cell therapy and small inhibitory RNA‑based treatments. Given the molecular heterogeneity of TNBC, the importance of precision medicine was also discussed and it was emphasized that this approach is becoming an increasingly critical aspect of personalized treatment strategies. Resistance to existing therapies presents a major challenge to the effective treatment of TNBC, and thus, the development of future therapeutic strategies requires technical innovations. By integrating these insights, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current and future means of improving TNBC outcomes.
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.