ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025
Survival outcomes after systemic treatment of high-grade triple-negative metaplastic breast cancer versus triple-negative breast cancer of no special type.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ACT, NACT) in high-grade triple-negative metaplastic breast cancer (TNMBC) and to compare survival outcomes with those of triple-negative breast cancer of no special type (TNBC NST). A total of 73 patients with high-grade TNMBC and 369 patients with TNBC NST were included in the study. In the non-NACT and ACT subgroups, TNMBC patients exhibited significantly worse overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) than TNBC NST patients (non-NACT: p < 0.001 for all endpoints; ACT: OS, p < 0.001; DDFS, p < 0.001; BCSS, p = 0.004; DFS, p < 0.001). In the NACT subgroup, TNMBC and TNBC NST patients had similar survival outcomes. Within the TNMBC cohort, patients treated with NACT without achieving a pathological complete response (pCR) demonstrated improved OS (p = 0.045) and a trend toward improved BCSS (p = 0.056) compared to TNMBC patients who did not receive CT. No significant survival difference was observed between TNMBC patients treated with ACT and those without CT, nor between NACT-treated TNMBC patients without a pCR and those treated with ACT. We conclude that survival outcomes of TNMBC vs. TNBC NST patients may be influenced by systemic treatment. NACT-treated TNMBC patients without a pCR demonstrated superior OS compared to TNMBC patients receiving no CT, while no survival difference was observed among TNMBC patients based on treatment sequencing (ACT vs. NACT).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40841714What 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.