Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34631532›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021

Harnessing DNA Repair Defects to Augment Immune-Based Therapies in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Curtis A Clark, Eddy S Yang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Integrating Genomic Information with Tumor-Immune Microenvironment in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Curtis A ClarkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, United States.
Eddy S YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, United States.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has poor prognosis with limited treatment options, with little therapeutic progress made during the past several decades. DNA damage response (DDR) associated therapies, including radiation and inhibitors of DDR, demonstrate potential efficacy against TNBC, especially under the guidance of genomic subtype-directed treatment. The tumor immune microenvironment also contributes greatly to TNBC malignancy and response to conventional and targeted therapies. Immunotherapy represents a developing trend in targeted therapies directed against TNBC and strategies combining immunotherapy and modulators of the DDR pathways are being pursued. There is increasing understanding of the potential interplay between DDR pathways and immune-associated signaling. As such, the question of how we treat TNBC regarding novel immuno-molecular strategies is continually evolving. In this review, we explore the current and upcoming treatment options of TNBC in the context of DNA repair mechanisms and immune-based therapies, with a focus on implications of recent genomic analyses and clinical trial findings.

Indexed as

breast cancerDDR (DNA damage response)DNA repairimmunotherapyPARP inhibition (PARPi)PD-1 - PD-L1 axisTNBC

Identifiers

PMID34631532
PMCPMC8497895
OpenAlexW3203347345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.