Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25815246›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2015

Prognostic value of the lymph node ratio for lymph-node-positive breast cancer- is it just a denominator problem?

Upali W Jayasinghe, Nirmala Pathmanathan, Elisabeth Elder, John Boyages

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Upali W JayasingheWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead, New South Wales Australia ; Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales Australia.
Nirmala PathmanathanWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead, New South Wales Australia.
Elisabeth ElderWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead, New South Wales Australia.
John BoyagesMacquarie University Cancer Institute, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the prognostic value of lymph node ratio (LNR) for patients with node-positive breast cancer with varying numbers of minimum nodes removed (>5, > 10 and > 15 total node count).

methodsThis study examined the original histopathological reports of 332 node-positive patients treated in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia between 1 April 1995 and 30 September 1995. The LNR was defined as the number of positive lymph nodes (LNs) over the total number of LNs removed. The LNR cutoffs were defined as low-risk, 0.01-0.20; intermediate-risk, 0.21- 0.65; and high-risk, LNR >0.65.

resultsThe median follow-up was 10.3 years. In multivariate analysis, LNR was an independent predictor of 10-year breast cancer specific survival when > 5 nodes were removed. However, LNR was not an independent predictor when > 15 nodes were removed. In a multivariate analysis the relative risk of death (RR) decreased from 2.20 to 1.05 for intermediate-risk LNR and from 3.07 to 2.64 for high-risk while P values increased from 0.027 to 0.957 for intermediate-risk LNR and 0.018 to 0.322 for high-risk with the number of nodes removed increasing from > 5 to > 15.

conclusionsAlthough LNR is important for patients with low node denominators, for patients with macroscopic nodal metastases in several nodes following an axillary dissection who have more than 15 nodes dissected, the oncologist can be satisfied that prognosis, selection of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy fields can be based on the numerator of the positive nodes.

Indexed as

Breast cancer specific survivalLymph node ratioNumber of nodes removedpN stage

Identifiers

PMID25815246
PMCPMC4366431

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.