ArticleClinical breast cancer2025
Use and Benefit of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Node-Negative, T1 Triple Negative Breast Cancer.
Article in Clinical breast cancer, 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.
- Retrospective study of comparable survival after neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in cT1-2N0M0 triple-negative breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere are scarce data about the use and benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in small size, node-negative triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We examined pathological response and survival outcomes of patients with T1N0 TNBC who received NACT.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of patients with T1N0 TNBC diagnosed between 2010 and 2020. Cox regression models were used to compare overall survival (OS) for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and NACT cohorts. Cumulative incidence functions and breast cancer-specific hazard models were used to compare breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) between ACT and NACT cohorts.
resultsWe found 8146 patients treated with ACT and 1263 patients treated with NACT. Age < 50 years, mastectomy and radiation therapy were associated with higher odds of receiving NACT. There was no difference in BCSS or OS for patients with T1b/T1cN0 TNBC who received NACT or ACT. However, patients with T1aN0 TNBC had worse BCSS and OS when treated with NACT as compared to those who received ACT. Pathological complete response (pCR) in T1N0 tumors was associated with improved OS (HR, 0.28) and BCSS (HR, 0.21). Furthermore, T1aN0 tumors had lower pCR rate than T1cN0 tumors (18% vs. 47%).
conclusionPatients with node-negative, T1b and T1c tumors benefit equally from the use of ACT and NACT. The results of worse outcome in patients with node-negative, T1a tumors treated with NACT compared to ACT are intriguing and need further investigation.
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.