ReviewBritish journal of cancer2026
Reconsidering the definition of triple-negative breast cancer in the immune checkpoint inhibitor era: an optimal cut-off value for hormone receptor percentage of HER2-negative invasive breast cancer.
Review in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of subsequent-line therapies for advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a bayesian network meta-analysis.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- NCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Beyond Molecular Classification in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Toward Subtype-Guided Precision Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2026.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- B-cells in breast cancer: current insights and challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal cut-off values of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) expression to define the positivity of ER and PgR have been under discussion for over a decade but remain controversial. The American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) and the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus recommended that breast cancers with ≥1% of ER or PgR expression should be considered hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors but ER/PR expression of 1% to 10% should be reported as HR-low positive; however, among HER2-negative disease, data on the overall benefit of adjuvant endocrine therapies for patients with HR-low positive disease is limited, resulting in the revisiting of the definition of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Defining HR-low positive disease by better understanding the biology is essential because of the recent advancement of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for TNBC. Additionally, identifying who should be treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly those who have HR-low HER2-negative disease, which is currently treated as TNBC without adjuvant endocrine therapy, is a clinical unmet need. In clinical practice, treating physicians have tailored systemic treatment strategies using other clinical and pathological factors (i.e., age, grade, Ki-67, tumor size, lymph node involvement). There is no universal practice to treat patients with HR-low HER2-negative breast cancer. This review summarized the currently available data to define the clinically relevant optimal cut-off values of ER/PgR in neoadjuvant- and adjuvant-setting. We recommend considering creating a novel category of triple-negative like breast cancer (TN-like BC), which will require a therapeutic strategy different from conventional TNBC.
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.