ArticleWorld journal of surgery2010
Intraoperative assessment of sentinel node using imprint cytology.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- [The evolution of surgical management for early-stage breast cancer at a university breast centre in Hungary].Magyar onkologia · 2026Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of touch imprint cytology for sentinel lymph node metastases of breast cancer: An up-to-date meta-analysis of 4,073 patients.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2023Article
- Imprint cytology versus frozen section analysis for intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph node in breast cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2017Article
- Sentinel lymph nodes for breast carcinoma: an update on current practice.Histopathology · 2016Review
- The sensitivity and specificity of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas: a retrospective review of 488 cases.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has replaced axillary sampling as the axillary staging procedure of choice in patients with breast cancer. Accurate intraoperative evaluation of the SLN would allow axillary lymph node clearance to be performed during the initial operation when the SLN is positive for metastatic disease. The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of intraoperative imprint cytology (IC) of the SLN in two different institutions in the United Kingdom.
methodsAll breast cancer patients who underwent a SLN biopsy using a standard protocol in two hospital breast units were included. The SLN was sent fresh to the pathology laboratory, where it was immediately processed and examined by a cytopathologist using IC. The intraoperative IC results were compared with the final histopathological results. No therapeutic decisions were made based on the results of IC in this study.
resultsA total of 166 patients were included, with 47 positive and 119 negative cases on final histology. Of the 47 patients who were positive on final histology, there were 29 positive and 18 negative cases on IC (sensitivity = 61.7%). All 119 patients who were negative on final histology were negative on IC (specificity, 100%). The negative and positive predictive value of the final histology was 86.9% and 100%, respectively. The accuracy of IC was 89.2%.
conclusionsThe results from these two breast units are comparable with findings reported in the published literature, confirming that IC can be used to assess SLN biopsy intraoperatively. No unnecessary axillary node clearance would have been carried out based on the results of IC.
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.