SynthesisPloS one2021
Pathological complete response of adding targeted therapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for inflammatory breast cancer: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Define Inflammatory Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Predictors of recurrence in breast cancer patients with pathological partial response.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Vorinostat (SAHA) and Breast Cancer: An Overview.Cancers · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current use of targeted therapy plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is based on data extrapolated from studies in non-IBC. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus targeted therapy results in a higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with IBC. METHOD AND
findingsThis systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO register with registration number CRD42018089465. We searched MEDLINE & PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO from December 1998 through July 2020. All English-language clinical studies, both randomized and non-randomized, that evaluated neoadjuvant systemic treatment with or without targeted therapy before definitive surgery and reported the pCR results of IBC patients. First reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Second reviewer confirmed the accuracy. Studies were divided into 3 groups according to systemic treatment: chemotherapy with targeted therapy, chemotherapy alone, and high-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem cell support (HSCS). Of 995 screened studies, 23 with 1,269 IBC patients met the inclusion criteria. For each of the 3 groups of studies, we computed a weighted average of the pCR rates across all studies with confidence interval (CI). The weighted averages (95% CIs) were as follows: chemotherapy with targeted therapy, 31.6% (26.4%-37.3%), chemotherapy alone, 13.0% (10.3%-16.2%), and high-dose chemotherapy with HSCS, 23.0% (18.7%-27.7%). The high pCR by targeted therapy group came from anti-HER2 therapy, 54.4% (44.3%-64.0%). Key limitations of this study included no randomized clinical studies that included only IBC patients.
conclusionNeoadjuvant chemotherapy plus targeted therapy is more effective than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for IBC patients. These findings support current IBC standard practice in particular the use of anti-HER2 targeted therapy.
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.