ArticleBMC cancer2023
Impact of estrogen receptor expression level on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prognosis in HER2-negative breast cancers.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary Risk-Reducing Strategies for Contralateral Breast Cancer in BRCA1/2 Variant Carriers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Advances in therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Atezolizumab plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab as first-line treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer: the ATRACTIB phase 2 trial.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- A dual-tower multimodal framework with feature quality enhancement for predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a multicenter study.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical Decision-Making After Receptor Conversion Following Neoadjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Three-Strategy Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Level of estrogen receptor expression, histological grade, and computationally assessed stromal TILs on pre-treatment biopsies predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Impact of estrogen receptor expression levels on chemo-responsiveness and prognosis of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Adjuvant endocrine therapy in estrogen-low breast cancer in the era of CDKI: are we at another uncertain crossroads?Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Reconsidering the definition of triple-negative breast cancer in the immune checkpoint inhibitor era: an optimal cut-off value for hormone receptor percentage of HER2-negative invasive breast cancer.British journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Pathological complete response and survival outcomes in single hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its intrinsic biological features and immune landscape.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Large Unstained Cells (LUC): A Novel Predictor of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Outcomes in HR+ HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Role of the NOLUS Score in Predicting pCR and iDFS in HR-positive HER2-negative Early Breast Cancer Patients who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancers with 1-10% cell staining for estrogen receptor (ER) present particular clinical features. The clinical data of estrogen receptor expression level and treatment effect are limited, particularly regarding chemotherapy benefit. We evaluated the pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in ER low positive tumors (ER staining 1-10%) and compared it with ER > 10% positive tumors (ER staining > 10%) and ER-negative tumors. We further explored the differences in recurrence and survival with respect to the ER expression level.
methodPatients with stages II and III HER2-negative primary breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by definitive surgery were categorized according to their ER percentages into three groups: ER-negative, ER low positive, and ER > 10% positive. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between each variable and pathologic complete response (pCR). Kaplan‒Meier analysis was used to estimate survival outcomes. Cox models were used to adjust for patient and tumor characteristics.
resultsA total of 241 patients were analyzed. Of all patients included, 22 (9.1%) had ER low positive tumors, 159 (66.0%) had ER > 10% positive tumors, and 60 (24.9%) were ER-negative. Low ER positivity was significantly associated with a higher pCR rate than ER > 10% positivity (OR, 0.249; 95% CI, 0.067-0.923; P = 0.038). After a median follow-up time of 32 months, the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of the patients with ER low positive tumors were significantly worse than those of the patients with ER > 10% positive tumors but similar to those with ER-negative tumors. After adjustment for covariates, ER low positive tumors were significantly associated with worse DFS than ER > 10% positive tumors.
conclusionOur results indicated that ER low positive breast cancer presents a better response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and significantly worse prognosis for patients than those with ER > 10% positive tumors, but similar to the ER-negative group. These data support that this category of patients behaves clinically like patients with ER-negative breast cancer and should be treated differently from patients with ER > 10% positive tumors. Further prospective study is needed.
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.