ReviewAmerican journal of cancer research2026
Breast cancer brain metastasis: mechanisms, emerging biomarkers, and therapeutic opportunities.
Review in American journal of cancer research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) is a clinically distinct form of metastatic breast cancer that causes substantial neurological morbidity and mortality. This review examines the biological bottlenecks that precede a detectable brain lesion: survival in the circulation, interaction with the cerebral endothelium, passage across the blood-brain barrier (BBB), persistence in neural tissue, and intracranial outgrowth. We emphasize how astrocytes, microglia, neurons, stromal cells, and the nutrient environment of the brain shape these events and influence treatment response. These biological features also shape disease assessment. Magnetic resonance imaging defines lesion burden but cannot reliably determine molecular status, whereas tissue sampling is invasive and plasma biomarkers may underrepresent disease confined to the central nervous system. We therefore examine the complementary roles and current limitations of tissue reassessment, blood- and cerebrospinal fluid-based liquid biopsy, molecular imaging, and artificial intelligence-assisted image analysis. Experimental evidence is interpreted according to the questions that individual models can answer. Spontaneous, intravascular, and intracranial models retain different stages of the metastatic cascade, while immunocompetent, patient-derived xenograft, and organoid systems differ in their ability to reproduce immune interactions and patient heterogeneity. Treatment is considered by subtype and clinical setting, including the need for immediate local control, intracranial disease burden, leptomeningeal involvement, previous therapy, and extracranial disease status. Clinical evidence is most developed for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive BCBM, whereas treatment of hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative disease and triple-negative breast cancer remains more dependent on local therapy and systemic indications derived from extracranial disease. Linking brain-specific mechanisms with biomarker selection, model interpretation, and subtype-guided treatment may improve the translation of experimental findings into clinically meaningful strategies.
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.