Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Clinical & Translational Oncology · September 20, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is reserved for tumours with a worse prognosis, introducing confounding by indication. Using sequentially adjusted Cox models to display confounding step by step, we assessed prognostic factors and the role of neoadjuvant therapy in a single-centre breast cancer cohort. METHODS: Retrospective study of 461 women treated at a single Spanish hospital (2016-2018) and followed to March 2026 (median 7.3 years; 456 in survival analyses). Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods; proportional hazards were checked with Schoenfeld residuals and missing data handled by multiple imputation. RESULTS: Five-year OS and DFS were 89.7% and 86.0%. Independent prognostic factors were stage III-IV (HR 3.9), triple-negative subtype (HR 2.4) and adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.32). The apparent adverse effect of neoadjuvant therapy (univariable HR 2.35) disappeared after stage adjustment (HR 1.6; p = 0.17), with the same pattern for DFS; treated women differed chiefly in stage III-IV (60% vs. 14%; standardised mean difference 1.09). Recovering missing histological grade from source reports abolished its apparent prognostic effect (HR 1.40, 0.82-2.39). The triple-negative excess risk was concentrated in the first three years (HR 4.8 vs 0.4; interaction p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for stage and tumour burden, the apparent adverse effect of neoadjuvant therapy is largely explained by confounding by indication rather than treatment although the small treated subgroup cannot exclude a modest residual effect. Sequentially adjusted Cox models display the confounding pathway explicitly, complementing propensity-score approaches.