ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Provider level facilitators and barriers towards neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative and HER2 + breast cancer: a survey of Ontario surgeons.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is considered standard of care for patients with cT2 + and/or N + triple negative (TN) and HER2-positive (HER2 +) breast cancer (BC). A previous retrospective study showed only 23.9% of stage II-III TN or HER2 + BC patients in Ontario received NAC. This study aimed to identify provider-level facilitators and barriers to using NAC as first-line treatment.
methodsWe surveyed General Surgeons in Ontario using a self-administered questionnaire developed through systematic item generation and reduction. We evaluated face and content validity, as well as test-retest reliability. Surveys were sent via mail delivery with reminder. Participants could also use a QR code to access the online version. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics and qualitative responses examined using open coding.
resultsTotal response rate was 21.1% (212/1005). All respondents who treated BC (71/71) reported being aware of indications and benefits of NAC for TNBC and HER2 + BC. Most respondents reported recommending NAC for node positive and node negative, > 2 cm TNBC (97.2%) and were equally likely for node positive HER2 + (98.6%), but less likely for node negative, > T2 (88.7%). Respondents perceived patient factors (e.g. age and comorbidities and patient's fear of chemotherapy) as barriers towards receiving NAC. The most reported facilitator to NAC was access to multidisciplinary cancer conferences.
conclusionSurgeons demonstrated strong knowledge of NAC's indications and benefits, indicating that low NAC rates are likely not due to lack of awareness. Patient factors remain the major barriers to NAC uptake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41991619What 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.