ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Leptomeningeal metastasis in triple-negative breast cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeptomeningeal metastasis (LM) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) poses significant clinical challenges due to its rapid progression and dismal prognosis. The low incidence (2-5%) of LM in patients with breast cancer underscores the urgent need for comprehensive research efforts in this critical domain.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 45 TNBC patients with LM was conducted to assess their clinical profiles, treatments, and survival outcomes, aiming to improve prognosis.
resultsLM was diagnosed in 41 patients through cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology and in 24 patients through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with sensitivities of 85.4% and 57.1%, respectively. The median overall survival (OS) for all patients was 4.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-6.7) months. Among 45 patients, 40% (18/45) received systemic treatment, 44.4% (20/45) received local treatment, and notably, 24.4% (11/45) received both. Factors significantly associated with overall survival included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥ 3 (hazard ratio [HR], 3.51; p = 0.024), receipt of systemic chemotherapy (HR, 0.07; p < 0.001), and administration of intrathecal chemotherapy (IC) (HR, 0.07; p = 0.010). Furthermore, specific combinations of systemic and local treatments demonstrated favorable prognosis, including concurrent systemic chemotherapy with IC (p < 0.01) and sequential systemic chemotherapy with radiotherapy (p < 0.001).
conclusionOur investigation revealed a dismal prognosis for LM in TNBC patients. Optimal diagnostic accuracy is achieved through integrating CSF analysis and neuroimaging. Post-diagnosis, combining local and systemic treatments is recommended for patients with a favorable performance status.
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.