Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
BMC Cancer · October 6, 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.
Abstract Background Real-world evidence on sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) remains limited. This study assessed SG outcomes in a multicentre Central European cohort. Methods This retrospective study included patients from CEBCC-102 project treated in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The analysis was restricted to patients who received SG in the third or later line of systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Eligibility required either at least three prior chemotherapy lines for metastatic disease or prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy followed by at least two chemotherapy lines for metastatic disease. For subgroup analyses, prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy was counted as one prior chemotherapy line. Baseline characteristics, prior therapies, response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed descriptively; survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results Among 107 patients, 67 had a total of three prior chemotherapy lines and 40 had at least four, including prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy where applicable. Median follow-up estimated using the reverse Kaplan–Meier method was 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.3–27.5 months). Median PFS was 4.1 months, with a 6-month PFS rate of 37.3% (95% CI, 27.8–46.8%). No significant difference in PFS was observed according to the total number of prior chemotherapy lines (three vs. ≥ 4: 4.1 vs. 3.7 months; p = 0.58). Median OS was 10.6 months, with a 12-month OS rate of 42.7% (95% CI, 32.5–52.5%), without significant differences according to the total number of prior chemotherapy lines (three vs. ≥ 4: 10.5 vs. 11.7 months; p = 0.65). SG was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicities or grade 5 adverse events. Conclusions In this secondary analysis SG showed activity in heavily pretreated patients with mTNBC. No significant survival differences were observed according to the total number of prior chemotherapy lines; however, this finding may reflect survivorship and selection biases and should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalent efficacy irrespective of prior treatment exposure. SG may retain clinical value beyond earlier metastatic treatment lines in clinically fit patients.