Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42763814›Full record

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.

Juan Jesús Fernández Alba, Ángel Vilar Sánchez, Irene Valencia Téllez, Laura de Pablo Zamora, Nieves Maira González, Carmen González Castellano, Marina Sánchez Porro, Gabriel Fiol Ruiz, Estefanía Casaut Lora, Sonia García Rodríguez and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Juan Jesús Fernández AlbaDepartment of Maternal and Child Health and Radiology, University of Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain. jjesus.fernandez@uca.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7297-6876
Ángel Vilar SánchezDepartment of Maternal and Child Health and Radiology, University of Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain.
Irene Valencia TéllezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Laura de Pablo ZamoraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Nieves Maira GonzálezDepartment of Pathology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Carmen González CastellanoDepartment of Radiology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Marina Sánchez PorroDepartment of Radiology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Gabriel Fiol RuizUnit of Gynaecologic Oncology and Lower Genital Tract, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Torrecárdenas University Hospital, Almería, Spain.
Estefanía Casaut LoraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Sonia García RodríguezDepartment of Medical Oncology, Puerto Real University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.
Carmen González MacíasDepartment of Maternal and Child Health and Radiology, University of Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast cancerConfounding by indicationCox regressionNeoadjuvant chemotherapyObservational studiesPrognostic factorsProgressive Cox modelsSequential adjustmentSurvival

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.