ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for clinical T1 triple-negative breast cancer.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Review
- Retrospective study of comparable survival after neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in cT1-2N0M0 triple-negative breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its benefits in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and small tumors are unclear. This study aims to compare survival differences between clinical T1 TNBC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Data for patients with clinical T1 TNBC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were categorized according to whether they received chemotherapy before or after surgery. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used to minimize the influence of confounding factors. OS and BCSS were compared between the two treatment sequences using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. The study included 6249 women with T1 TNBC. In multivariate analysis, compared with that in the AC group, the hazard ratio for death in the NAC group was 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.26-1.89, p < 0.001). NAC offers no additional benefits in any age group or T, N subgroups. Our findings suggest that NAC does not provide additional benefit to patients with clinical T1 TNBC, even in the presence of lymph node metastasis, or T1c.
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.