Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38643430›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024

Comparing survival outcomes between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy within T2N1M0 stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study based on SEER database.

Yuhang Shang, Xuelian Wang, Yansong Liu, Weilun Cheng, Yunqiang Duan, Zhengbo Fang, Jiangwei Liu, Fanjing Kong, Ting Wang, Tianshui Yu and 11 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

21 authors.

Yuhang Shang *Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Xuelian Wang *Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Yansong LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Weilun ChengDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Yunqiang DuanDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Zhengbo FangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Jiangwei LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Fanjing KongDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Ting WangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Tianshui YuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Anbang HuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Jiarui ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Hanyu ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Mingcui LiDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Zhiyuan RongDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Yanling LiDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Suborna S ShakilaDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Xinxin LiDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Jianyuan FengDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Fei MaDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Baoliang GuoDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China. baoliangguo2013@163.com.

Funding

Chongqing Xinqiao Hospital, Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University 81872135National Natural Science Foundation of China 82002791
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuideline recommendations for the application of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in T2N1M0 stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR + /HER2-) breast cancer are ambiguous. The debate continues regarding whether NACT or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) offers superior survival outcomes for these patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsFemale patients diagnosed with HR + /HER2- breast cancer at T2N1M0 stage between 2010 and 2020, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and divided into two groups, the NACT group and the ACT group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to establish balanced cohorts between groups, considering baseline features. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) analysis and the Cox proportional hazards model were executed to assess the efficacy of both NACT and ACT in terms of overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). A logistic regression model was employed to examine the association between predictive variables and response to NACT.

resultsAfter PSM, 4,682 patients were finally included. K-M curves showed that patients receiving NACT exhibited significantly worse OS and BCSS when compared with patients undergoing ACT. Multivariable Cox analysis indicated that not achieving pathologic complete response (non-pCR) after NACT (versus ACT), was identified as an adverse prognostic factor for OS (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36-1.83) and BCSS (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.44-2. 02). The logistic regression model revealed that low tumor grade independently predicted non-pCR.

conclusionAmong T2N1M0 stage HR + /HER2- patients, OS and BCSS of NACT were inferior to ACT. Patients who attained non-pCR after NACT demonstrated significantly worse survival outcomes compared with those who received ACT.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesNeoadjuvant TherapyReceptors, ProgesteroneSEER ProgramAdultAgedChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPropensity ScoreProportional Hazards ModelsReceptors, EstrogenERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneAdjuvant chemotherapyHormone receptor-positive breast cancerNeoadjuvant chemotherapySEER databaseSurvival outcomes

Identifiers

PMID38643430
PMCPMC11194213

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.