ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the long-term survival outcomes of patients with operable hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer at stage II and T3N1M0 receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) using data extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Methods: Data on 33,552 patients were extracted from the SEER database between 2010 and 2020. Patients were categorized into the NACT group and the ACT group. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). After propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the effects of NACT versus ACT on survival outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the impact of various clinical and pathological factors on survival outcomes. Results: After PSM, the NACT group showed significantly inferior 5-year OS (87.4% vs 91.8%, P<0.0001) and BCSS (89.3% vs 93.7%, P<0.0001) compared to the ACT group. Even among patients achieving objective response to NACT, multivariate Cox regression demonstrated significantly higher risks of breast cancer-specific death (HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 1.17-1.73, P<0.001) and all-cause death (HR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.10-1.57, P = 0.002) versus the ACT group. Conclusion: In patients with operable HR+/HER2- breast cancer at stage II and T3N1M0, NACT was associated with inferior OS and BCSS compared to ACT. These findings suggest caution when selecting NACT for this patient subset.
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.