ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Impact of quality control indicator system management program on neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for breast cancer: a comparative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Breast cancer (BC) management in China faces significant challenges, particularly in terms of standardizing diagnosis and treatment protocols across various healthcare settings. The implementation of a quality control (QC) indicator system offers a potential solution to improve treatment consistency and outcomes. This study evaluated the impact of a QC indicator system on the standardization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for BC. Methods: A QC system was developed by an expert panel in alignment with China's 2022 guidelines. A comparative study was conducted between Jiangsu Cancer Hospital (experimental, implementing PDCA-cycle management) and Nantong Tumor Hospital (control, routine practices). Key indicators included cTNM staging completeness, chemotherapy record standardization, and rational anti-tumor drug use. Additionally, clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and treatment adherence were assessed, alongside qualitative data derived from clinical records. Results: After the QC system was implemented, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital demonstrated significant improvements: cTNM staging completeness increased from 92.5% to 98.08%, chemotherapy record standardization improved by 66.65%, and rational drug use rose from 78% to 87.5% (all P<0.05). In contrast, no significant improvements were observed in the control hospital. The clinical outcomes and patient-reported symptoms also demonstrated favorable trends in the intervention hospital. Qualitative data revealed facilitators such as clearer treatment protocols and improved coordination, while challenges included increased documentation workload. Conclusions: The QC system effectively enhanced the standardization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for breast cancer, with improvements in clinical management and rational drug use. These results offer a scalable model for improving breast cancer management quality in other regions and institutions. Further research, including multi-center studies with extended follow-up, is recommended to validate these findings and explore the long-term impact of QC interventions on patient outcomes.
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.