ABSTRACT
Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care for locally advanced breast cancer. However, the disconnect between efficacy in randomized trials and effectiveness in real-world practice—attributable to real-world treatment delays and adherence barriers—remains underexplored for early-stage (cT1-cT3) operable disease.
Methods We applied the Target Trial Emulation (TTE) framework to a propensity-score matched cohort from the SEER database. To mitigate immortal time bias and staging migration, we reconstructed clinical baselines. Individualized Treatment Effects (ITE) were estimated using a Double-Robust Causal Forest algorithm. To rigorously cross-validate these estimates against model misspecification, we employed a DeepCox neural network as a non-linear sensitivity analysis tool, exposing complex risk structures (e.g., U-shaped hazards) that traditional linear assumptions might overlook.
Results In the matched cohort (N=26,946), Standard NAC was associated with an operational survival deficit (Absolute Risk Difference: 3.6%) compared to upfront surgery, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.24–1.40; p < 0.001). Causal Forest analysis revealed a critical “Response-Survival Discordance”: while young TNBC patients exhibited high nodal pathologic complete response (npCR) rates, they paradoxically faced the worst survival outcomes (Standard Cox HR 1.87). Even in the 6-month landmark analysis to account for immortal time bias, this survival detriment persisted (Landmark HR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06–1.81; p = 0.016; Figure 3D). Crucially, node-positive (cN+) patients—traditionally considered ideal candidates for systemic downstaging—experienced a significant survival detriment with NAC (HR 1.39). This disadvantage was most pronounced in Luminal A subtype and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC), where NAC failed to provide effective source control. In contrast, HER2-positive status exhibited a trend towards survival benefit, diverging from the significant risks observed in other subtypes. Anatomically, while cT2 tumors identified a “window of minimal operational deficit” where the absolute risk difference was negligible, operational risk paradoxically resurged in cT3 tumors, challenging the conventional paradigm that larger burdens inherently mandate downstaging.
Conclusion Our causal analysis reveals a critical disconnect between biological risk and therapeutic efficacy. While SHAP modeling identified node-positive (cN+) status as a high-priority indicator for systemic therapy, the low real-world response rate (npCR 15.0%) rendered historical standard NAC regimens insufficient to counterbalance the risks of surgical delay (HR 1.39). Our findings indicate that without therapeutic escalation (e.g., immunotherapy) to ensure high pathologic response rates, the operational risks of deferring surgery may outweigh the benefits of downstaging in this subgroup. Our findings highlight a critical “Implementation Gap” where standard NAC regimens yield suboptimal real-world outcomes for high-risk subgroups. Our findings suggest that clinical prioritization should diverge based on subtype biology: for chemo-refractory subtypes (e.g., Luminal A, ILC), Upfront Surgery ensures immediate source control and should be prioritized; conversely, for high-risk TNBC, standard NAC is insufficient, warranting Therapeutic Escalation (e.g., immunotherapy) to minimize the risk of non-response.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
he Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University waived the ethical review of this study because the data were accessed from the publicly available SEER database.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
✉ guan12121{at}126.com (S. Guan)
Data Availability
The data underlying this article were provided by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (https://seer.cancer.gov) under the Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. The data is publicly available upon request and submission of a signed Data-Use Agreement to the SEER program.
