ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Real-world survival outcomes of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in operable triple-negative breast cancer: a propensity score matched registry-based study.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
- Real-world outcome of neoadjuvant therapy with or without pembrolizumab for triple-negative breast cancer.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype where the prognostic implications of primary systemic therapy followed by surgery, compared to up-front surgery and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), are yet to be outlined. This retrospective registry-based study aimed to compare survival outcomes between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus ACT for operable TNBC in a real-world setting. Patient/material and methods: We included all patients treated with chemotherapy for operable TNBC in Sweden between 2008 and 2019 using the Swedish national research database BCBaSe 3.0. To reduce confounding by indication, we implemented propensity score matching (PSM) and main study outcomes were defined as distant disease-free survival (DDFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsA total of 4,704 patients were included in the study, of which 1,183 received NACT. Following 1:1 PSM, 837 patients in each treatment setting were available for analyses. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of DDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 - 1.50), BCSS (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 - 1.45) or OS (aHR 1.07; 95% CI 0.82 - 1.39) between patients treated with NACT versus ACT. However, subgroup analysis of patients with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) demonstrated a significant DDFS benefit of NACT (aHR 0.65; 95% CI 0.47 - 0.90).
interpretationOverall, we found comparable survival among patients with TNBC treated with NACT or ACT. Considering the anticipated survival improvements when response-guided post-neoadjuvant strategies are implemented in clinical practice, our findings may support the use of NACT in operable TNBC.
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.