ReviewCancers2026
Sacituzumab Govitecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Single-Arm Efficacy and Integration of Randomized and Real-World Evidence.
Review in Cancers, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMetastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) carries a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an anti-Trop-2 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown activity in this setting, but a quantitative synthesis integrating randomized and real-world evidence-particularly in underrepresented subgroups-was lacking. We aimed to summarize the comparative benefit of SG, which derives from a single randomized trial, and to assess whether trial-level efficacy is consistent with the activity observed in routine practice.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science (January 2017-April 2026) for trials and observational cohorts of SG monotherapy in mTNBC. Comparative effects were taken from randomized data; single-arm efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], clinical benefit rate [CBR], median progression-free [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) was pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. The review was registered in the Open Science Framework.
resultsNine studies (1242 patients; 980 SG-treated) were included: one randomized trial (ASCENT), two single-arm trials, and six real-world cohorts. In ASCENT, SG improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.63) and OS (HR 0.51, 0.42-0.64). Pooled ORR was 31.1% (28.0-34.4), and CBR was 42.2% (37.7-46.8), with the median PFS being 4.8 months (4.4-5.3) and OS being 11.0 months (9.3-13.0); trial-derived and real-world estimates were concordant. The benefit persisted in older patients (HR 0.25) and Black women (HR 0.44) but not in those with brain metastases (HR 0.68, 0.38-1.23).
conclusionsSG shows clinically meaningful activity in mTNBC that is broadly consistent between controlled trials and routine practice. Comparative superiority over chemotherapy rests on a single randomized trial (ASCENT); the pooled single-arm estimates describe activity and its consistency rather than a comparative effect.
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.