ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Retrospective study of comparable survival after neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in cT1-2N0M0 triple-negative breast cancer.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype commonly treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, administered preoperatively as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or postoperatively as adjuvant treatment (AT; defined here as adjuvant chemotherapy [ACT] with or without adjuvant radiotherapy [ART]). As NACT is increasingly favored, the relative survival outcomes of these approaches and the added benefit of postoperative therapy after NACT remain uncertain. This study aimed to assess their impact on survival.
methodsIn this nationwide registry-based cohort study, data for women diagnosed with cT1-2N0M0 TNBC in Sweden between 2007 and 2021 were retrieved from the Swedish National Quality Register for Breast Cancer. Survival outcomes for patients receiving NACT ± AT were compared with those receiving AT only. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed, adjusting for age, clinical T-stage, and comorbidity. Overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsOf 3747 eligible patients, 711 received NACT ± AT and 3036 received AT alone. Median follow-up for BCSS was 3.61 years (IQR 2.37-5.50) for NACT and 6.95 years (IQR 4.36-9.62) for AT. After matching, 711 patients remained in each group. Both prior and post matching, 5-year OS and BCSS did not differ significantly between AT and NACT. These findings remained consistent after adjustment for potential confounders.
conclusionOS and BCSS were similar between AT and NACT. These findings suggest that chemotherapy sequencing was not associated with a detectable survival difference, although treatment selection should be individualized and evaluated in the context of contemporary regimens.
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.