MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Survival outcomes following upfront surgery vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative and HER2-positive T1c and T2 breast cancer: A retrospective, population-based cohort study.

2025· article· en· W4410809731 on OpenAlexaffabout
Y. Lee, Vasily Giannakeas, David W. Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyRetrospective cohort studyTriple-negative breast cancerChemotherapyNeoadjuvant therapyInternal medicineCancerCohortPopulationOverall survivalTriple negativeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e12592 Background: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is the guideline-concordant approach for HER2-positive(+) and triple negative (TN) breast cancers over 2 cm in size. The decision between NST or upfront surgery for clinical T1cN0 HER2+ and TN breast cancers remains controversial. We compared the 10-year survival rates following NST vs upfront surgery for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-negative (HR-)/HER2+, HR+HER2+, and TN T1c-T2 tumors. Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using administrative health databases at ICES. Data from all patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2009 and 2019 in Ontario, Canada were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Demographic, tumor, and treatment data were collected from the linked databases. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to assess the 10-year survival rates for patients undergoing NST vs upfront surgery. Survival curves were compared using the log-rank test and stratified by receptor status, T stage, and nodal status. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS, with statistical significance set at P<0.05. Results: There were 395 HR-HER2+, 1199 HR+HER2+, and 1186 TN T1c tumors. There was no difference in 10-year survival between NST and upfront surgery for HR-HER2+ (P=.35) and HR+HER2+ (P=.46) T1c tumors. When stratified by T stage and nodal status, this finding was consistent across HR-HER2+ and HR+HER2+ T1c N0, N1, and N2 tumors. 10-year survival was greater for upfront surgery vs NST for overall TN T1c tumors (P<.001). This trend was significant for TN T1cN0 (P=.003) and T1cN1 (P=.001). Among T2 tumors, there were 827 HR-HER2+, 1945 HR+HER2+, and 2090 TN tumors. 10-year survival rates were similar for upfront surgery and NST for overall HR-HER2+ and HR+HER2+ T2 tumors (P=.68 and P=.64 respectively). However, upfront surgery showed higher 10-year survival for HR-HER2+ T2N2 (P<.001), as well as for overall TN T2 tumors (P<.001). This trend remained consistent across TN T2N1 and N2 (P<0.001 for both). Conclusions: There was no difference in 10-year survival between NST and upfront surgery for HER2-positive T1c tumors. The decision-making in this setting should therefore consider the potential for chemotherapy regimen de-escalation with upfront surgery versus the potential for NST to guide adjuvant therapies depending on response. We did observe better survival for TN T1c and T2 tumors having upfront surgery, which requires further study. Our cohort predates the CREATE-X trials, which underscores the need to study a more contemporary cohort with longer-term follow-up. Our findings may inform the decision-making for upfront surgery versus NST for patients with early-stage TN and HER2+ breast cancer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→