ReviewCancers2025
The Impact of Novel Therapies on Quality-of-Life in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of subsequent-line therapies for advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a bayesian network meta-analysis.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Current and future therapies for triple-negative breast cancer.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- The Precision Revolution in Hematologic Malignancies: A Decade of Transformative Immunotherapies and Targeted Agents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
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
backgroundTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype characterized by poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Chemotherapy regimens are associated with significant adverse effects negatively impacting patients' quality of life (QoL). This systematic review aims to evaluate and compare QoL outcomes of patients with TNBC receiving novel therapies-including immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted therapies-versus standard chemotherapy.
methodsWe systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published within the past 15 years, identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, Google Scholar, Research4Life, and Elicit. Included studies involved FDA-approved novel therapies (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, sacituzumab-govitecan, olaparib, and talazoparib) administered to TNBC patients, and assessed QoL using validated tools such as EORTC QLQ-C30. Observational studies, case reports, and non-standardized assessments were excluded.
resultsEight RCTs comprising 3929 patients met the inclusion criteria. Sacituzumab govitecan and PARP inhibitors (olaparib and talazoparib) significantly improved QoL, notably delaying deterioration across physical, emotional, and functional domains compared to standard chemotherapy. Conversely, immunotherapies (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab) showed non-significant trends toward QoL improvement, with effects varying by patient subgroup and disease stage. Interpretation was limited by study design differences, inconsistent compliance, and incomplete data reporting.
conclusionsImmunotherapy showed a neutral effect on quality of life, providing neither significant improvement nor additional decline. Olaparib was associated with a delayed deterioration in quality of life, showing a more favorable tolerability profile compared to chemotherapy. Talazoparib leads to clinically meaningful enhancements in quality of life, while sacituzumab govitecan effectively improves patient-reported outcomes relative to standard chemotherapy.
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.