ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Confounding by indication in the evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a sequential Cox analysis of an eight-year single-centre breast cancer cohort.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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 (NACT) is reserved for tumours with a worse prognosis, introducing confounding by indication. Using sequentially adjusted Cox models to display confounding step by step, we assessed prognostic factors and the role of neoadjuvant therapy in a single-centre breast cancer cohort.
methodsRetrospective study of 461 women treated at a single Spanish hospital (2016-2018) and followed to March 2026 (median 7.3 years; 456 in survival analyses). Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods; proportional hazards were checked with Schoenfeld residuals and missing data handled by multiple imputation.
resultsFive-year OS and DFS were 89.7% and 86.0%. Independent prognostic factors were stage III-IV (HR 3.9), triple-negative subtype (HR 2.4) and adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.32). The apparent adverse effect of neoadjuvant therapy (univariable HR 2.35) disappeared after stage adjustment (HR 1.6; p = 0.17), with the same pattern for DFS; treated women differed chiefly in stage III-IV (60% vs. 14%; standardised mean difference 1.09). Recovering missing histological grade from source reports abolished its apparent prognostic effect (HR 1.40, 0.82-2.39). The triple-negative excess risk was concentrated in the first three years (HR 4.8 vs 0.4; interaction p = 0.020).
conclusionsAfter adjustment for stage and tumour burden, the apparent adverse effect of neoadjuvant therapy is largely explained by confounding by indication rather than treatment although the small treated subgroup cannot exclude a modest residual effect. Sequentially adjusted Cox models display the confounding pathway explicitly, complementing propensity-score approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42763814What 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.