ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2026
Tailoring targeted therapies for younger women with ER-positive early-stage breast cancer.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Total and Positive Lymph Node Count on Recurrence in Young Women with Node-Positive Breast Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- EBCC-15 manifesto: Removing age-related barriers to improve equity in breast cancer care.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Review
- Prognostic impact of extensive nodal involvement in small-sized (T1) breast cancer: a population-based and propensity score-matched analysis of the SEER database.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- GPR30-mediated NETs degradation via Trex1 in heart failure of aged female mice.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- NUPR1 in breast cancer: mechanisms and potential applications.Frontiers in physiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Younger premenopausal women (typically defined as those aged <40 years) diagnosed with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive early-stage breast cancer have disproportionately poorer outcomes relative to older women, with age-related differences being especially pronounced in this subtype. Emerging evidence suggests that this age-related disparity is underpinned by distinct biological and genomic features - such as enrichment in copy number alterations, homologous recombination deficiency and unique immune microenvironments - that are not fully addressed by current therapeutic strategies. Endocrine therapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for premenopausal women with ER-positive early-stage breast cancer, yet strategies for its use continue to evolve. Clinical studies have highlighted the importance of ovarian function suppression (OFS) in improving the outcomes in patients with high-risk disease, as well as the benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard-of-care (SOC) endocrine therapies and the expanding role of molecular profiling in guiding treatment decisions. In this Review, we describe how treatment paradigms are now challenging the conventional sequencing of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in younger women. A biology-driven approach - incorporating germline status, gene expression and immune signatures - will better guide therapy in this population and transform clinical decision-making beyond chronological age. We propose that future trials involving women with premenopausal ER-positive disease must prioritize biology over age in defining eligibility, incorporate OFS as a SOC in the control arm and expand biomarker-driven approaches to refine both treatment escalation and de-escalation. A genomically and immunologically informed strategy is essential to improve the outcomes in this under-represented population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41634433What 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.