Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39949935›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025

Comparing survival outcomes between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy within hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer among young women (≤35): a retrospective cohort study based on SEER database and TJMUCH registry.

Mengjun Zhao, Linwei Li, Bin Wang, Shuang Gao, Jinhui Wang, Jianing Liu, Yixuan Song, Hong Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Mengjun ZhaoThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Linwei LiThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Bin WangThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Shuang GaoThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Jinhui WangThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Jianing LiuThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Yixuan SongThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.
Hong LiuThe Second Surgical Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin 300060, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality among young women, who often experience more aggressive disease, which may impact their treatment responses and long-term prognoses. Understanding the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) versus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in this specific population is critical for optimizing treatment strategies and improving prognoses. This research was conducted to compare the prognoses of young women (≤35 years old) with early-stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, who were treated with NAC versus those treated with AC. This study retrospectively analyzed data from young women with HR+/HER2- breast cancer, with complete follow-up information, sourced from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2018) and the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (TJMUCH) (2014-2018). Patients from both cohorts were allocated to NAC and AC groups based on their treatment regimens. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square, whereas the Kaplan-Meier method was utilized to generate survival curves; additionally, the log-rank test was employed for survival analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to control baseline differences. Analysis of the SEER and TJMUCH cohorts revealed that patients treated with NAC had significantly worse overall survival (OS) compared to those treated with AC, as indicated by Kaplan-Meier curves both before and after PSM. The disease-free survival analysis of the TJMUCH cohort yielded similar results, indicating that patients treated with AC experienced longer periods without disease recurrence compared to their counterparts receiving NAC. Statistically significant differences were observed across both survival metrics, reinforcing the robustness of our findings. Overall, among young women (≤35 years old) with early-stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer, patients treated with AC exhibited a more favorable prognosis and improved survival outcomes compared to those treated with NAC. These findings could potentially influence clinical decision-making and treatment guidelines, advocating for a more tailored approach in managing young women with HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Indexed as

adjuvant chemotherapyBreast cancerneoadjuvant chemotherapysurvival outcomeyoung women

Identifiers

PMID39949935
PMCPMC11815373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.