ArticleScientific reports2025
Achieving treatment goals in older breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Provider level facilitators and barriers towards neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative and HER2 + breast cancer: a survey of Ontario surgeons.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in older patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: real-world insights from neo-real/GBECAM-0123.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Root Cause Analysis of Omissions and Delays in the Initiation of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Eligible Patients with Breast Cancer in British Columbia, Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Real Clinical Data and Literature Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is well-established for locally advanced breast cancer, even in the early stages, especially in HER2-positive and triple-negative cases. However, the effect of chronologic age on NAC response remains controversial. This study investigates the efficacy and outcomes of NAC in older patients with breast cancer, compared to a younger cohort, to address the current knowledge gap. 535 patients who received NAC followed by curative surgery from 2010 to 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. We evaluated breast and axillary downstaging, pathologic complete response (pCR), and post-treatment toxicities. Data were stratified by age, with patients aged 65 years and older representing the older group. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was prevalent (97.6%) and favored younger patients who received a dose-dense anthracycline regimen (71.7% vs. 38.5%, p < 0.001). Surgical outcomes, breast and axillary downstaging, and the pathologic complete response showed no age-related differences. Grade 3-4 toxicity was higher in older patients (71% vs. 46.4%, p < 0.01). Older patients treated with NAC achieve comparable outcomes to younger patients, supporting personalized treatment. Chronologic age should not dictate treatment decisions, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluation for optimal geriatric patient care.
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.