ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026
The Yield of Staging Investigations in Patients with Breast Cancer Planned for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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
backgroundPatients with breast cancer planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) represent a diverse population including high-risk early breast cancer (EBC) and locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). Staging investigations are routinely performed, but the clinical utility is unclear.
methodsUsing a provincial cancer registry, we identified breast cancer patients referred for NAC between 2020 and 2022. Patients with staging investigations were stratified into EBC (anatomic clinical stage I-II) and LABC (stage III). Rates of metastatic (M1) disease and associated factors were assessed.
resultsAmong 529 EBC patients, 515 (97.4%) underwent staging. The M1 disease rate was 5.4%. The M1 rate for cT1-2N0 was 1.1%, and for cT1-2N1 it was 7.9%. In multivariable analysis, cT1N1 (OR 5.31; 95% CI 1.05-27.0;
conclusionsThese findings support a risk-adapted approach to pre-treatment staging in patients planned for NAC, omitting staging in asymptomatic cT1-2N0 disease, considering it for node-positive EBC, and performing it routinely in LABC.
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.