SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2023
Comparative efficacy and safety of first-line neoadjuvant treatments in triple-negative breast cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Low Expression of a Circular Transcript of the Apoptosis Regulator GeneBiomedicines · 2026Article
- DNA Methylation and Demethylation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Associations with Clinicopathological Characteristics and the Chemotherapy Response.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neoadjuvant treatment options for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are abundant, but the efficacy of different combinations of treatment options remains unclear. Our network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of various neoadjuvant treatment options in patients with TNBC. Literature reports published before March 31, 2022, were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, main oncology conference of the European Society of Medical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium databases. Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to compare direct and indirect evidence, respectively. The primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR). Comparison of efficiency between different treatment regimens was made by HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, 26 studies, including 9714 TNBC patients, were assessed in this network meta-analysis. Results indicated that the pCR of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum-containing regimens is better than other joint regimens. PCR rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens containing bevacizumab, platinum, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors was higher than those of standard chemotherapy agents. By performing a conjoint analysis of the pCR rate and safety endpoints, we found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum-containing regimens were well balanced in terms of efficacy and toxicity. Considering the efficacy and acceptable adverse events, neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum may be considered as an option for patients with TNBC.
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.