ArticleNPJ breast cancer2021
Cisplatin +/- rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA mutated breast cancer.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- PARP inhibitors and breast cancer: from therapeutic breakthrough to resistance challenge.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Emerging Protein Targets in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Beyond Conventional Therapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- Tailored therapies for triple-negative breast cancer: current landscape and future perceptions.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- CircRNA (circ)_0007823 Contributes to Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Progression and Cisplatin Resistance via the miR-182-5p/FOXO1 Pathway.Biochemical genetics · 2025Article
- Targeting the Key Signaling Pathways in Breast Cancer: From Molecular Mechanism to Therapeutic Interventions.Recent patents on anti-cancer drug discovery · 2025Review
- Advances in predicting breast cancer driver mutations: Tools for precision oncology (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Emerging treatment approaches for triple-negative breast cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Review
- Recent Advances in Drug Discovery for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Treatment.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Advancements in clinical aspects of targeted therapy and immunotherapy in breast cancer.Molecular cancer · 2023Review
- Adjuvant capecitabine in triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment: real-world evidence fromFrontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Nanomaterial-assisted CRISPR gene-engineering - A hallmark for triple-negative breast cancer therapeutics advancement.Materials today. Bio · 2022Review
- Treatment Strategies for Residual Disease following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Functions of Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes: Implications for Clinical Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD) and BRCA 1/2 Gene Mutation for Predicting the Effect of Platinum-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy of Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Everything Comes with a Price: The Toxicity Profile of DNA-Damage Response Targeting Agents.Cancers · 2022Review
- Strategies for the Improvement of Metal-Based Chemotherapeutic Treatments.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Cisplatin +/- rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA mutated breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy have a high risk of recurrence. We tested the impact of DNA-damaging chemotherapy alone or with PARP inhibition in this high-risk population. Patients with TNBC or deleterious BRCA mutation (TNBC/BRCAmut) who had >2 cm of invasive disease in the breast or persistent lymph node (LN) involvement after neoadjuvant therapy were assigned 1:1 to cisplatin alone or with rucaparib. Germline mutations were identified with BROCA analysis. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) with 80% power to detect an HR 0.5. From Feb 2010 to May 2013, 128 patients were enrolled. Median tumor size at surgery was 1.9 cm (0-11.5 cm) with 1 (0-38) involved LN; median Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) score was 2.6. Six patients had known deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at study entry, but BROCA identified deleterious mutations in 22% of patients with available samples. Toxicity was similar in both arms. Despite frequent dose reductions (21% of patients) and delays (43.8% of patients), 73% of patients completed planned cisplatin. Rucaparib exposure was limited with median concentration 275 (82-4694) ng/mL post-infusion on day 3. The addition of rucaparib to cisplatin did not increase 2-year DFS (54.2% cisplatin vs. 64.1% cisplatin + rucaparib; P = 0.29). In the high-risk post preoperative TNBC/BRCAmut setting, the addition of low-dose rucaparib did not improve 2-year DFS or increase the toxicity of cisplatin. Genetic testing was underutilized in this high-risk population.
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.