ReviewTargeted oncology2025
Second-Line Treatment Options for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Review of the Clinical Evidence.
Review in Targeted oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of subsequent-line therapies for advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a bayesian network meta-analysis.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A novel colchicine-binding site inhibitor suppresses triple-negative breast cancer growth and metastasis and synergizes with anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in an immunogenic cancer model.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Real-World Data Analysis.World journal of oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer has a poor prognosis and poses significant therapeutic challenges. Until recently, limited therapeutic options have been available for patients with advanced disease after failure of first-line chemotherapy. The aim of this review is to assess the current evidence supporting second-line treatment options in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Evidence was reviewed from controlled clinical trials in which eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, gemcitabine, gemcitabine plus carboplatin, fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan, sacituzumab govitecan, olaparib, and talazoparib were used in the second-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer, either as study drugs or as comparators. The benefit of treatment was evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Based on the evidence review, sacituzumab govitecan was identified as the preferred second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, supported by clinical evidence and consensus across international clinical guidelines. Olaparib and talazoparib are of use in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Exploratory data for fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan suggest a survival benefit in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low, hormone-receptor-negative patients, but further solid evidence is required. Other chemotherapies with lower European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale scores may continue to be useful in highly selected patients.
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.