ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Response of mucinous breast carcinoma to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Mucinous breast carcinoma (MBC) is thought to be a favorable-differentiated form of invasive breast cancer and is rarely preferred for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The study aimed to define the response of MBCs to NAC. Materials and methods: A review was made of the demographic, clinicopathologic characteristics, management and follow-up data of 70 patients diagnosed with MBC between May 2010 and December 2020 by examining the patients' historical files and oncology records. Results: The median age, tumor size, and follow-up period of patients were 52.9 (range: 32-87) years, 25.8 (range: 8-88) mm, and 61.5 (range: 18-143) months, respectively. Of the 70 patients, 45 had conservative surgery, 25 had a mastectomy, and 22 had axillary clearance due to a positive sentinel node biopsy or clinical axilla. Eight patients (11.4%) received NAC. Twenty-one patients (30.0%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas almost all the patients received hormone therapy. The preoperative core biopsy diagnosis of four of eight patients receiving NAC was unspecified invasive breast carcinoma. NAC was used as treatment in patients who were younger, had tumors larger in diameter, had tumors with an initial higher T-stage, and especially those with clinically positive axilla, and tumors with a higher Ki-67 index. Despite these preference criteria, both the overall mastectomy and axillary clearance rates were significantly higher in these patients. Two local and five systemic recurrences were observed in the follow-up period. NAC had no significant contribution to survival. Conclusion: It may be concluded that NAC is not sufficiently effective in either helping to diminish the need for mastectomy by downsizing the tumor, or in preventing axillary clearance in MBCs, and no significant benefit on survival could be observed. In addition, the results may emphasize the importance of identifying the MBC subtype, and the significant association between the degree of response to NAC and the subtype.
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.