ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2023
Breast-Conserving Surgery in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: integrating multimodal imaging and clinical features.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Prognostic predictive value of Ki-67 in stage I-II triple-negative breast cancer.Future science OA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and prognosis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) combined with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and analyze the influencing factors and predictors of the efficiency and prognosis of NAC. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by dividing patients into two groups according to two different therapy methods. With BCS as the exposure factor, 46 cases were assigned to the exposed group and 80 cases to the nonexposed group. We compare the difference in operation-related indicators, postoperative complications, local recurrence rate, distant metastasis rate, and overall survival (OS) rate between the two groups. The factors affecting the efficiency and prognosis of NAC were analyzed by binary logistic regression, and the optimal cutoff value was determined by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The survival curve was plotted, and the univariate log-rank test was performed to analyze the difference in OS between the two groups. The influencing factors of OS were analyzed by the Cox risk regression model. Results: NAC + BCS resulted in significantly less intraoperative blood loss, lower incidence of postoperative complications, and shorter operative time and length of hospital stay than that in NAC ( Conclusions: NAC + BCS is a good method for treating TNBC, which has an obvious short-term effect and a good long-term prognosis. Clinical stage I and the high expression of Ki-67 are independent protective factors for the efficacy of NAC. The high expression of Ki-67 and nondecline expression of Ki-67 are independent risk factors of prognosis. Ki-67 is a potential predictor for the efficacy, prognosis, and OS of NAC in TNBC patients. The high expression of Ki-67 indicates better NAC efficacy, a poorer prognosis, and a lower OS.
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.