ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025
Effect of chemotherapy timing in triple-negative breast cancer: a real-world evidence study.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Luteolin regulates pyroptosis of triple-negative breast cancer cells through AKT signaling.Discover oncology · 2025Article
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
purposeTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive, heterogeneous malignancy with poor prognosis. The optimal timing of chemotherapy-neoadjuvant (NACT) versus adjuvant (ACT)-remains controversial. This study assessed real-world outcomes in non-metastatic TNBC patients according to chemotherapy timing.
methodsThis retrospective study (2008-2023) evaluated the impact of chemotherapy timing on overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in a cohort of 711 patients. Propensity score (PS) matching with preoperative variables was used to adjust for baseline imbalances, and Cox regression models were applied to account for treatment-related variables.
resultsNACT was administered to 525 patients (73.8%), with a 37.3% pathological complete response (pCR) rate. PS matching yielded 177 patient pairs; tumor stage, age and histologic grade remained unbalanced. In the unadjusted analysis, NACT was associated with worse OS (HR 1.56, 95% CI1.08-2.25, p = 0.018). However, multivariate analysis adjusting for unmatched and postoperative variables showed a potential benefit of NACT for OS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.07-4.13, p = 0.545) and EFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.21-4.17, p = 0.932). Tumor stage acted as an effect modifier, and stratified analyses revealed that NACT was superior to ACT in patients with advanced-stage disease who achieved pCR (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.7, p < 0.010).
conclusionsIn our TNBC cohort, chemotherapy timing significantly influenced OS and EFS, particularly in relation to initial tumor stage and pCR status. NACT was more beneficial than ACT in patients with advanced disease who achieve pCR, underscoring its role in both prognostic stratification and therapeutic decision-making.
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.