ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2025
Development and validation of a pathological model predicting the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer based on RCB scoring.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable AI-Derived Spatial Pathological Features of Tumor, Necrosis, and Lymphocytes Identify Key Histological Signatures for Residual Cancer Burden Assessment in Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Development of tRNA-based biomarkers for breast cancer: insight from machine learning.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Plasma proteome-genome integration reveals novel protein biomarkers and therapeutic targets linked to breast cancer survival.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Prediction of neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer based on interpretable artificial intelligence.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a pathomics-driven machine learning model for individualized prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response and early recurrence in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Breast cancer has become the most prevalent malignant tumor among women globally, posing a serious threat to women's life and health. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has emerged as one of the standard treatment approaches for breast cancer patients. However, due to varying responses to NAT among different patients, significant differences in treatment effectiveness occur, impacting the timely alteration of treatment strategies for patients. Material and methods: This study included a total of 201 breast cancer patients who completed NAT, divided into a training group of 140 cases and a validation group of 61 cases. Based on clinical and pathological characteristics along with the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) score, we utilized a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm to construct a Pathomics Breast Cancer Signature (PBCS) prediction model. We thoroughly validated the PBCS and compared it to a Pathomics Signature (PS) prediction model. Results: In our study, we used CellProfiler to extract nine pathological features highly correlated with patients' RCB scoring from HE-stained slides of breast cancer NAT. Employing the SVM algorithm, we developed a pathological prediction label, named PS. Subsequently, through univariate and multivariate analysis, we discovered a significant correlation between HER2 and the patients' RCB scores. Integrating HER2 into PS, we constructed a breast cancer pathological prediction model, named PBCS. PBCS exhibits good performance in predicting the effectiveness of postoperative therapy (RCB 0-I) in both the training sets (AUC = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.7988-0.9173]) and validation sets (AUC = 0.83 [95% CI: 0.7219-0.9382]). In the validation set, PBCS significantly outperforms the PS (AUC = 0.65 [95% CI: 0.5121-0.7886]). Calibration curves and clinical decision curves also strongly support PBCS's ability to effectively predict the efficacy of therapy (RCB 0-I). Conclusions: PBCS can assist clinical and pathological physicians in accurately predicting patients' post-treatment RCB grading before initiating NAT. This offers a new approach to forecast breast cancer patients' responsiveness to NAT, aiding in devising personalized treatment strategies for 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.