ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Drug-specific safety signal prioritization of antibody-drug conjugates in breast cancer: integrating FAERS pharmacovigilance, machine learning, and clinical contextualization.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are increasingly used across breast cancer subtypes, but their postmarketing safety-reporting patterns differ across agents and are difficult to interpret across spontaneous-reporting and clinical settings. We integrated breast-cancer-restricted FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) analyses, temporal machine-learning prioritization, and an independent institutional cohort to characterize drug-specific safety patterns across complementary evidence layers. Methods: FAERS quarterly files from 2013Q1 through 2025Q4 were deduplicated and analyzed at the report level. The primary dataset comprised 13,529 breast-cancer primary-suspect reports involving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), or sacituzumab govitecan; 20,526 all-indication reports were retained for supportive sensitivity analysis. Analyses included clinically reviewed preferred-term disproportionality, 11 prespecified adverse events of special interest (AESIs), intraclass adjusted reporting odds, reported time to onset, and temporally validated exploratory machine-learning models for report-level AESI prioritization. An independent retrospective cohort of 105 patients was analyzed descriptively for clinical contextualization. Results: The primary dataset included 3,962 T-DM1, 6,452 T-DXd, and 3,115 sacituzumab govitecan reports. Compared with T-DM1, T-DXd showed higher adjusted reporting odds for interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [aROR], 3.23; 95% CI, 2.55-4.09) and gastrointestinal toxicity (aROR, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.07-2.90), whereas sacituzumab govitecan showed higher reporting odds for hematologic (aROR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.67-2.28) and gastrointestinal toxicity (aROR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.44-3.46). T-DM1 showed higher hepatobiliary reporting odds than both comparators. Temporal-validation AUROC values ranged from 0.593 to 0.772. In the institutional cohort, hepatobiliary toxicity was most frequent with T-DM1 (32.3%), ILD/pneumonitis with T-DXd (12.0%), and hematologic toxicity with sacituzumab govitecan (66.7%). Conclusion: The three ADCs showed distinct breast-cancer FAERS safety-reporting patterns. Machine learning provided exploratory report-level prioritization, while institutional observations provided clinical context. These findings support pharmacovigilance signal prioritization but should not be interpreted as incidence, comparative clinical risk, causal effects, or patient-level toxicity prediction.
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.