ReviewNPJ breast cancer2025
Sequence of therapy impact on older women with comorbidities and triple-negative or HER2-positive breast cancer.
Review in NPJ breast cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual Paper-Based Electrochemical Device for Multiplex Detection of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer miRNA Signatures.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Large Language Models as Decision-support Tools for Adjuvant Therapy Planning in Early-stage Hormone Receptor-positive Breast Cancer.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We sought to determine whether sequencing of treatment impacted outcomes in older, comorbid patients. Using the National Cancer Database(2010-2017), 2911 patients >70 with a Charleson Deyo Comorbidity(CCDM) score of 2/3 and cT1c-3/N0-3/HER2 positive or triple-negative breast cancer treated with chemotherapy,surgery,or both were included. Chi-square tests evaluated differences between groups. Multivariable models evaluated associations between overall survival and treatment. Majority 87.4%(n = 2544) underwent surgery first and 36.0%(n = 917) received adjuvant chemotherapy while 77.9%(n = 286) of chemotherapy first patients underwent surgery. Receipt of both modalities was associated with the best survival followed by surgery alone then chemotherapy alone. Additional analysis demonstrated no survival difference between patients who underwent surgery(±systemic therapy) vs systemic therapy(±surgery) first. Although combined treatment offers the best survival, as a single modality, patients treated with surgery vs systemic therapy alone fare better. This information in conjunction with patient preferences on quality of life can be used in making shared decisions.
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.