ArticleDiscover oncology2026
A comparative analysis of mutational profiles between triple-negative breast cancer and non-triple-negative breast cancer.
Article in Discover oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAmong breast cancer subtypes, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with the poorest prognosis and currently lacks effective targeted therapies. While gene mutation profiling provides valuable insights into recurrent mutations and genomic heterogeneity, the comparative mutational characteristics distinguishing TNBC from non-TNBC tumors have not been comprehensively investigated. This study aims to elucidate these differences through a systematic comparative analysis.
methodsWe retrieved clinical data and somatic mutation profiles of 704 breast cancer patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Based on hormone receptor expression status, the breast cancer samples were stratified into TNBC cohort (n = 109) and non-TNBC cohort (n = 595). Comprehensive genomic analysis was performed to compare differences in mutational profiles between the two cohorts, including differential frequencies of recurrent mutations, interaction patterns of co-occurring and mutually exclusive mutations, driver genes, decomposition of mutational signatures using the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database, and pathway enrichment of significantly altered genes.
resultsCompared to the non-TNBC cohort, the TNBC patients had a younger age at onset. Significant differences were observed in the mutation rate of TP53 (81% vs. 27%, p < 2.2 × 10
conclusionsOur study delineates the distinct genomic mutational landscapes between TNBC and non-TNBC cohorts, and reveals somatic interactions, driver genes, mutational signatures and pathway enrichment. These findings highlight the distinct molecular features of TNBC, which may contribute to its aggressive clinical behavior.
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.