ReviewCancers2026
Preclinical-Clinical Discrepancies in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Efficacy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Disease Stage, Antibody Properties, Biomarker Alignment, and Model Limitations.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as an important class of cancer immunotherapies, yet clinical outcomes do not always align with findings from preclinical studies. This review examines preclinical-clinical discrepancies in ICI efficacy for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), with a focus on disease stage, antibody properties, biomarker alignment, and model limitations. Preclinical and clinical findings are most concordant in early-stage TNBC, where ICI-based chemoimmunotherapy improves therapeutic outcomes. In contrast, clinical benefit in metastatic TNBC is more limited and biomarker-dependent, while preclinical studies evaluating ICIs in metastatic TNBC remain scarce, limiting our understanding of immunotherapy resistance at this stage. Currently available TNBC models have not been fully leveraged to represent metastatic disease, in part because their immunosuppressive and metastatic progression has not been systematically characterized. Not all TNBC cell lines develop robust spontaneous metastasis in mouse models, and commonly used experimental metastasis models bypass key stages of primary tumor-immune interaction and metastatic evolution within a systemically immunosuppressive host environment. Additional translational gaps further complicate interpretation, including differences in the immune-effector functions of ICI antibodies used in clinical versus preclinical studies and the lack of standardized approaches to correlate PD-L1 expression in mouse model-derived tumors with clinically defined PD-L1 positivity in patient tumors. Recognizing and addressing these gaps will improve preclinical model selection, strengthen interpretation of ICI efficacy data, and enhance the translational value of preclinical studies for advanced TNBC.
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.