Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30814840›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2019

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer as a Model for Translational Research.

Cigdem Selli, Andrew H Sims

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cigdem SelliApplied Bioinformatics of Cancer, University of Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Centre, MRC Institute of Genetics & Molecular Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
Andrew H SimsApplied Bioinformatics of Cancer, University of Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Centre, MRC Institute of Genetics & Molecular Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
Edinburgh Cancer Research · GBMRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neoadjuvant therapy, where patients receive systemic therapy before surgical removal of the tumour, can downstage tumours allowing breast-conserving surgery, rather than mastectomy. In addition to its impact on surgery, the neoadjuvant setting offers a valuable opportunity to monitor individual tumour response. The effectiveness of standard and/or potential new therapies can be tested in the neoadjuvant pre-surgical setting. It can potentially help to identify markers differentiating patients that will potentially benefit from continuing with the same or a different adjuvant treatment enabling personalised treatment. Characterising the molecular response to treatment over time can more accurately identify the significant differences between baseline samples that would not be identified without post-treatment samples. In this review, we discuss the potential and challenges of using the neoadjuvant setting in translational breast cancer research, considering the implications for improving our understanding of response to treatment, predicting therapy benefit, modelling breast cancer dormancy, and the development of drug resistance.

Indexed as

Breast cancer dormancyclinical modeldrug resistanceneoadjuvant therapy

Identifiers

PMID30814840
PMCPMC6381436
OpenAlexW2917229456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 OpenQuestion graph.