ArticleNPJ breast cancer2026
Impact of estrogen receptor expression levels on chemo-responsiveness and prognosis of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2026. 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.
- Article
- Adjuvant endocrine therapy in estrogen-low breast cancer in the era of CDKI: are we at another uncertain crossroads?Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological characteristics, response to chemotherapy, and clinical outcomes according to estrogen receptor (ER) expression levels in breast cancer (BC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). ER expression levels were categorized as ER-negative (expression in <1% of tumor cells), ER-low positive (1-10%), ER-intermediate positive (11-50%), and ER- high positive (>50%). Of the 1,365 cases, 647 (47.4%) were classified as ER-negative, 49 (3.6%) as ER- low positive, 48 (3.5%) as ER-intermediate positive, and 621 (45.5%) as ER-high positive BCs in pre-NAC biopsies. ER-intermediate positive tumors as well as ER-low positive tumors showed no differences in clinicopathological characteristics compared to ER-negative tumors with the exception of progesterone receptor positivity. While ER-low positive and ER-negative tumors showed similar chemo-responsiveness, ER-intermediate positive tumors were less responsive to NAC compared to ER-negative tumors. In patients with residual disease, pre- and post-NAC ER expression levels were found to be independent prognostic factors, but with no significant differences among ER-negative, ER-low positive, and ER-intermediate positive tumors. Our study indicates that ER-low positive BCs are similar to ER-negative BCs and that ER-intermediate positive BCs exhibit characteristics heterogeneous between ER-negative and ER-high positive BCs in terms of clinicopathological characteristics, chemo-responsiveness, and clinical outcomes.
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.