ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2007
Sentinel node biopsy versus elective lymph node dissection in patients with cutaneous melanoma in a Japanese population.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sentinel lymph node biopsy in Japan.International journal of clinical oncology · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, elective lymph node dissection (ELND) has been the standard treatment for patients with possible nodal melanoma. Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) has now replaced ELND, not only in Japan but also worldwide. The objective of this study was to compare the interim outcomes of SNB and ELND.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted among patients with clinically node-negative disease treated at our institute with either SNB (n = 30) or ELND (n = 72).
resultsThe background was similar in the two groups. Nodal metastases were found in 40.0% of patients in the SNB group, but in only 26.4% in the ELND group (P = 0.173). The median follow-up was 31.5 months for the SNB group and 82 months for the ELND group. The incidence of locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis in the SNB group was 10.0% and 16.7%, respectively, and for the ELND group the incidence was 5.6% and 31.9%, respectively. The 3-year disease-free survival rate was similar in the two groups (P = 0.280), and the 3-year disease-free survival rates for node-positive patients were also similar in the two groups (P = 0.90), as were the 3-year disease-free survival rates for node-negative patients (P = 0.193).
conclusionThis interim result in a Japanese melanoma population with clinically node-negative disease demonstrated that SNB identified more nodal micrometastases than ELND. This increase in accurate staging likely resulted from the reliable identification of the lymph node field by lymphoscintigraphy, as well as the more detailed pathologic examination of the nodes removed in SNB. It is quite reasonable to perform SNB instead of ELND in this population.
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.