Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38657992›Full record

ReviewSaudi medical journal2024

The evolvement of breast cancer therapies: What we have done and where all these head off.

Ika Nurlaila, Sabar Pambudi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Saudi medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ika NurlailaFrom the Department of Vaccine and Drugs, The National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Banten, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4114-6837
Sabar PambudiFrom the Department of Vaccine and Drugs, The National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Banten, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although, from a therapeutic standpoint, breast cancer (BC) is considerably well-characterized, it still leaves puzzling spots. The Her-2+/PR+/ER+ BC can benefit from the mainstays of anticancer therapy and immunotherapy and overall have a better prognosis. Triple-negative BC, due to the concomitant absence of Her-2/PR/ER receptors, is more challenging and necessitates different strategies. It has been learned that the mainstay anti-BC therapies were initially designed to demolish as many cancer cells as they possibly could. However, the number of reports on the adverse effects of these mainstay therapies has recently been increasing. It underpins efforts to reshape such therapies into much better and safer forms over time. Moreover, some current findings on the molecular markers, which are target-potential, have also shifted the paradigm from radical-to-local-yet-precise-approach to meet the need for a therapy platform that is less cytotoxic to normal cells yet efficiently kills cancer cells.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansImmunotherapyTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinasesadverse effectbreast cancerintervention strategyrisk factorssurvival ratestriple negative breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID38657992
PMCPMC11147575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.