Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19224216›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2009

[Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: pathological analysis and interpretation].

G Cserni, T Decker

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Pathologe, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

G CserniBács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital, Kecskemét, Ungarn. cserni@freemail.hu
T Decker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This overview examines how the introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has changed the pathological staging of breast cancer. The more intensive analysis of the sentinel lymph nodes (gross slicing, step sections, immunohistological or molecular analysis) has lead to stage shifting in breast cancer. Regarding the rate of up-staging by positive results of SLNB, there are significant differences between institutes, some method-related, some related to the interpretation of results. Methodological differences should be reduced by means of reliable guidelines with the goal of systematically identifying metastases of a particular size (a macrometastasis over 2 mm being the minimum criterion). The next review of the TNM classification should result in a reduction in interobserver variability as a result of better definitions of staging categories for isolated tumor cells and micrometastases. In addition, a staging category is expected for metastases which have been identified by calibrated quantitative molecular tests only and which are larger than isolated tumors. Even in settings where nodal staging by SLNB is based on molecular tests at least a proportion of the lymph node should be investigated histologically.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymph NodesNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingReproducibility of ResultsSentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.