ArticleESMO open2026
Exploring the treatment gap and outcome risks in patients with node-positive, high-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: analyses of real-world data.
Article in ESMO open, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-year treatment with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is approved and guideline-recommended for patients with node-positive (N+), high-risk, hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (EBC). This study assessed real-world utilization of adjuvant abemaciclib and risk of recurrence and death in abemaciclib-eligible patients [N+ high-risk disease: N1 or N1 with micrometastases (N1mi) plus grade 3 or tumor size ≥5 cm, N2, or N3] treated with ET alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective analysis used the United States-based Flatiron Health data (January 2023-June 2024) to assess abemaciclib utilization among eligible patients with N+ high-risk features (N+ high-risk) and characteristics of patients who did or did not receive abemaciclib. A second analysis using a Flatiron Health data subset (January 2011-June 2024) compared risk of recurrence [invasive disease-free survival (IDFS)] and overall survival (OS) in patients with N+ high-risk features to patients with lower-risk features (non-high-risk) receiving ET alone, overall and by nodal subgroups. Outcomes in early triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) were described for context.
resultsOf 3170 patients with N+ high-risk EBC, 60.0% did not receive abemaciclib. Of those eligible with N1/N1mi tumors, 69.1% did not receive abemaciclib, despite 73.5% having grade 3 disease. In outcomes analyses, 5-year IDFS rates were similar for N+ high-risk (n = 696; 70.9%) and eTNBC (n = 515; 74.3%) and lower than non-high-risk (n = 5654; 91.2%). OS trends were consistent with IDFS. Five-year IDFS rates were 75.7%, 68.3%, and 59.6% for N1/N1mi, N2, and N3 subgroups, respectively, with similar trends for OS. Five-year risks of recurrence and death approximately doubled in N1/N1mi high-risk versus N1/N1mi non-high-risk.
conclusionsWhile adjuvant abemaciclib is approved for N+, high-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative EBC, utilization remains suboptimal in eligible patients, despite high recurrence and mortality risks similar to eTNBC. These data indicate the need for education about risk identification and implementation of optimal therapy.
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.