SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021
Comparing Biomarkers for Predicting Pathological Responses to Neoadjuvant Therapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicopathological and molecular predictors of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Trial
- The Impact of Androgen Receptor Expression on Neoadjuvant Therapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Developing a predictive model for neoadjuvant therapy in HER2 overexpression breast cancer using multi-parameter MRI radiomics: two-center retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Profiling of Cancer-Associated Cells in the Blood of Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to Predict Pathological Complete Response.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- TOR1B: a predictor of bone metastasis in breast cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe predictive strength and accuracy of some biomarkers for the pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the HER2-enriched subtype and the presence of PIK3CA mutations, namely, TILs, HRs, and Ki-67, in predicting the pCR to HER2-positive breast cancer therapy.
methodsWe screened studies that included pCR predicted by one of the following biomarkers: the HER2-enriched subtype and the presence of PIK3CA mutations, TILs, HRs, or Ki-67. We then calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs, respectively), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs). Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and areas under the curve (AUCs) were used to estimate the diagnostic accuracy.
resultsThe pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the HER2-enriched subtype and the presence of PIK3CA mutations, namely, TILs, HRs, and Ki-67, were 0.66 and 0.62, 0.85 and 0.27, 0.49 and 0.61, 0.54 and 0.64, and 0.68 and 0.51, respectively. The AUC of the HER2-enriched subtype was significantly higher (0.71) than those for the presence of TILs (0.59,
conclusionsThe HER2-enriched subtype has a moderate breast cancer diagnostic accuracy, which is better than those of the presence of PIK3CA mutations, TILs, HRs, and Ki-67.
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.