ArticleScientific reports2024
Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy is safe and feasible for breast conserving surgery or immediate reconstruction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of Oncogenic and Immunogenic Profiling in Patients with Breast Cancer Tumors After Radiation Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Concurrent Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Impact on Locoregional Recurrence Rates.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (NARCT) for early breast cancer. Female patients ≤ 80 years old with unilateral T1-T4 invasive ductal breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radiation therapy (RT) between 2006 and 2015 were enrolled from SEER database. Baseline differences in clinical and pathological characteristics were evaluated using chi-square test. The survival outcomes were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using Cox hazards models. The effects of baseline differences on survival outcome in patients treated with neoadjuvant radiation therapy (NART) and post-operation radiation therapy (PORT) were circumvented by propensity score matching (PSM). Altogether 14,151 patients receiving NAC and RT were enrolled, among whom 386 underwent NART. Based on a 1:4 PSM cohort, NART was an independent unfavorable prognostic factor for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) for the whole cohort. However, among patients receiving breast conserving surgery (BCS) (HR 1.029, P = 0.915 for BCSS; HR 1.003, P = 0.990 for OS) or implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) (HR 1.039, P = 0.921 for BCSS; HR 1.153, P = 0.697 for OS), those treated with NART had similar survival outcomes compared with patients treated with PORT. In conclusion, NARCT was a safe and feasible approach for patients undergoing BCS and IBR.
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.