ArticleCancer medicine2020
Gene signature-based prediction of triple-negative breast cancer patient response to Neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene expression alterations predict the pathological complete response in triple-negative breast cancer exploratory analysis of the NACATRINE trial.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes display prognostic signatures associated with chemotherapy response in TNBC patients.iScience · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of a nomogram based on HER2 status for predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- [Force-regulation mechanism of E-selectin mediated adhesion and activation of MDA-MB-231 cells under fluid shear stress].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
- Gut microbiota centered approaches for breast cancer intervention leveraging probiotics and postbiotics.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Development of predictive models for the prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer using multiple transcriptomic analyses.PloS one · 2026Article
- Chelidonine overcomes P-gp-mediated adriamycin resistance in MCF-7/ADR cells by inhibiting PDGFRChinese herbal medicines · 2026Article
- Stand-alone Transcriptional Immune Response Prediction in Primary Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Deep learning predicts the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with triple negative breast cancer.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Predicting Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Using Pre-Treatment Histopathologic Images.Cancers · 2025Article
- Immunological and nutritional perspectives on macromolecular therapies for thoracic tumors.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Review.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2025Review
- Exploring miRNA‑target gene profiles associated with drug resistance in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Notch-based gene signature for predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- A Novel Albumin-Related Nutrition Biomarker Predicts Breast Cancer Prognosis in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Two-Center Cohort Study.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Transcriptome Meta-Analysis of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Cancers · 2023Article
- Predicting Response of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network-Based Artificial Intelligence Tool.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
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
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard of care for large, advanced, and/or inoperable tumors, including triple-negative breast cancer. Although the clinical benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been illustrated through numerous clinical trials, more than half of the patients do not experience therapeutic benefit and needlessly suffer from side effects. Currently, no clinically applicable biomarkers are available for predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in triple-negative breast cancer; the discovery of such a predictive biomarker or marker profile is an unmet need. In this study, we introduce a generic computational framework to calculate a response-probability score (RPS), based on patient transcriptomic profiles, to predict their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We first validated this framework in ER-positive breast cancer patients and showed that it predicted neoadjuvant chemotherapy response with equal performance to several clinically used gene signatures, including Oncotype DX and MammaPrint. Then, we applied this framework to triple-negative breast cancer data and, for each patient, we calculated a response probability score (TNBC-RPS). Our results indicate that the TNBC-RPS achieved the highest accuracy for predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response compared to previously proposed 143 gene signatures. When combined with additional clinical factors, the TNBC-RPS achieved a high prediction accuracy for triple-negative breast cancer patients, which was comparable to the prediction accuracy of Oncotype DX and MammaPrint in ER-positive patients. In conclusion, the TNBC-RPS accurately predicts neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in triple-negative breast cancer patients and has the potential to be clinically used to aid physicians in stratifying patients for more effective neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.