Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42780657›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026

Chinese medicine-based interventions in triple-negative breast cancer: mechanistic evidence, clinical findings, and translational challenges-a narrative review.

Guoli Feng, Changju Chen, Taolang Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Guoli FengAffiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Changju ChenAffiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Taolang LiAffiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive and heterogeneous breast cancer subtype with early recurrence and limited therapeutic targets. The evidence reviewed here spans several non-equivalent intervention classes: licensed or commercial multi-component Chinese medicine products, standardized trial formulations, experimental botanical mixtures, and isolated constituents, fractions, or derivatives. We use the umbrella term Chinese medicine-based interventions (CMBIs) only for evidence mapping and do not assume pharmacological, manufacturing, or regulatory equivalence among these classes. Evidence was appraised on two independent dimensions: relevance to TNBC and study design/methodological robustness. TNBC-specific clinical evidence is limited to a small number of randomized and observational studies with dissimilar endpoints; a 2022 meta-analysis reported favorable pooled estimates but also substantial methodological weaknesses and intervention heterogeneity. Preclinical findings suggest pathway-associated effects involving apoptosis, ferroptosis, immune regulation, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, metabolism, and chemotherapy response. Ferroptosis evidence is currently limited to preclinical Shuganning injection studies showing iron-dependent lipid peroxidation and ferrostatin-1-sensitive cell death, without clinical validation in TNBC. Overall, CMBIs should be regarded as investigational adjunctive approaches rather than established TNBC-specific therapies. Priorities include product-level chemical characterization, clinically relevant exposure assessment, model-diverse causal validation, multicenter trials, and preparation-specific safety and interaction monitoring.

Indexed as

Chinese medicine-based interventionsclinical trialsevidence appraisalferroptosismodel heterogeneitytranslational researchtriple-negative breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID42780657
PMCPMC13598637

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.