ArticleBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2026
Investigation of the Residual Tumor Burden and Prognosis of Breast Cancer.
Article in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer remains a significant global health concern. The residual cancer burden (RCB) system quantifies response to neoadjuvant therapy. This study evaluates pathological response as a prognostic indicator in patients with residual invasive breast carcinoma through a retrospective single-center validation. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 100 surgical specimens from patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and mastectomy at a Brazilian public hospital. The RCB was calculated according to MD Anderson guidelines and classified as RCB-0 (complete response), RCB-I (minimal), RCB-II (moderate), or RCB-III (extensive). Clinicopathological correlations and survival analysis were performed. Results: The cohort was predominantly female (98%) with a mean age of 58.7 years. Invasive carcinoma of no special type was most common (86%). Extensive residual burden (RCB-III) predominated (66%), followed by RCB-II (29%), RCB-0 (3%), and RCB-I (2%). Higher RCB class was significantly associated with higher tumor grade (p< 0.0001), larger tumor size (p< 0.0001), greater lymph node involvement (p< 0.0001), and distant metastasis (p= 0.039). Mortality correlated with increasing RCB (74.6% of deaths were RCB-III). Survival analysis showed a significant difference among RCB classes (p= 0.024), with the most pronounced difference between RCB-II and RCB-III (p= 0.007). The luminal A subtype was more common in RCB-0, while luminal B HER2+ and triple-negative subtypes were more frequent in RCB-III. Conclusion: Within this historical cohort, the RCB index provides valuable prognostic information, effectively stratifying institutional patients based on recurrence and metastasis risk. While its routine adoption in clinical practice is supported to complement risk stratification, conclusions regarding its universal independent value across all classes are bounded by the low number of RCB-0 and RCB-I cases.
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.