Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18315887›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2008

New models and online calculator for predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients.

Holbrook E Kohrt, Richard A Olshen, Honnie R Bermas, William H Goodson, Douglas J Wood, Solomon Henry, Robert V Rouse, Lisa Bailey, Vicki J Philben, Frederick M Dirbas and 8 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Holbrook E KohrtDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. kohrt@stanford.edu
Richard A Olshen
Honnie R Bermas
William H Goodson
Douglas J Wood
Solomon Henry
Robert V Rouse
Lisa Bailey
Vicki J Philben
Frederick M Dirbas
Jocelyn J Dunn
Denise L Johnson
Irene L Wapnir
Robert W Carlson
Frank E Stockdale
Nora M Hansen
Stefanie S Jeffrey
Bay Area SLN Study

Funding

Adaptation of New Statistical Ideas for MedicineR01EB002784 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI EFRON, BRADLEY · 2003 to 2005
$557k
NIBIB NIH HHS 2-R01-EB-002784-30NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB002784
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent practice is to perform a completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for breast cancer patients with tumor-involved sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), although fewer than half will have non-sentinel node (NSLN) metastasis. Our goal was to develop new models to quantify the risk of NSLN metastasis in SLN-positive patients and to compare predictive capabilities to another widely used model.

methodsWe constructed three models to predict NSLN status: recursive partitioning with receiver operating characteristic curves (RP-ROC), boosted Classification and Regression Trees (CART), and multivariate logistic regression (MLR) informed by CART. Data were compiled from a multicenter Northern California and Oregon database of 784 patients who prospectively underwent SLN biopsy and completion ALND. We compared the predictive abilities of our best model and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Breast Cancer Nomogram (Nomogram) in our dataset and an independent dataset from Northwestern University.

results285 patients had positive SLNs, of which 213 had known angiolymphatic invasion status and 171 had complete pathologic data including hormone receptor status. 264 (93%) patients had limited SLN disease (micrometastasis, 70%, or isolated tumor cells, 23%). 101 (35%) of all SLN-positive patients had tumor-involved NSLNs. Three variables (tumor size, angiolymphatic invasion, and SLN metastasis size) predicted risk in all our models. RP-ROC and boosted CART stratified patients into four risk levels. MLR informed by CART was most accurate. Using two composite predictors calculated from three variables, MLR informed by CART was more accurate than the Nomogram computed using eight predictors. In our dataset, area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.83/0.85 for MLR (n = 213/n = 171) and 0.77 for Nomogram (n = 171). When applied to an independent dataset (n = 77), AUC was 0.74 for our model and 0.62 for Nomogram. The composite predictors in our model were the product of angiolymphatic invasion and size of SLN metastasis, and the product of tumor size and square of SLN metastasis size.

conclusionWe present a new model developed from a community-based SLN database that uses only three rather than eight variables to achieve higher accuracy than the Nomogram for predicting NSLN status in two different datasets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, TheoreticalSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyBlood VesselsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMulticenter Studies as TopicMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm InvasivenessNomogramsOnline Systems

Identifiers

PMID18315887
PMCPMC2311316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.