Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31897672›Full record

SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020

Axillary ultrasound for prediction of response to neoadjuvant therapy in the context of surgical strategies to axillary dissection in primary breast cancer: a systematic review of the current literature.

Malgorzata Banys-Paluchowski, Ines Verena Gruber, Andreas Hartkopf, Peter Paluchowski, Natalia Krawczyk, Mario Marx, Sara Brucker, Markus Hahn

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Malgorzata Banys-Paluchowski *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22307, Hamburg, Germany. m.banys@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2374-9482
Ines Verena Gruber *Department for Women's Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Andreas HartkopfDepartment for Women's Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Peter PaluchowskiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Regio Klinikum Pinneberg, Pinneberg, Germany.
Natalia KrawczykDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Mario MarxDepartment for Women's Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Sara BruckerDepartment for Women's Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Markus HahnDepartment for Women's Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
University of Tübingen · DEAsklepios Klinik Barmbek · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEKlinikum Bremerhaven-Reinkenheide · DERegio Kliniken · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeData on the optimal treatment strategy for patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) who initially presented with metastatic nodes and convert to node-negative disease (cN+ → ycN0) are limited. Since NAT leads to axillary downstaging in 20-60% of patients, the question arises whether these patients might be offered less-invasive procedures than axillary dissection, such as sentinel node biopsy or targeted removal of lymph nodes marked before therapy.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of clinical studies on the use of axillary ultrasound for prediction of response to NAT and ultrasound-guided marking of metastatic nodes for targeted axillary dissection.

resultsThe sensitivity of ultrasound for prediction of residual node metastasis was higher than that of clinical examination and MRI/PET in most studies; specificity ranged in large trials from 37 to 92%. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound after NAT seems to be associated with tumor subtype: the positive predictive value was highest in luminal, the negative in triple-negative tumors. Several trials evaluated the usefulness of ultrasound for targeted axillary dissection. Before NAT, nodes were most commonly marked using ultrasound-guided clip placement, followed by ultrasound-guided placement of a radioactive seed. After chemotherapy, the clip was detected on ultrasound in 72-83% of patients; a comparison of sonographic visibility of different clips is lacking. Detection rate after radioactive seed placement was ca. 97%.

conclusionIn conclusion, ultrasound improves prediction of axillary response to treatment in comparison to physical examination and serves as a reliable guiding tool for marking of target lymph nodes before the start of treatment. High quality and standardization of the examination is crucial for selection of patients for less-invasive surgery.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAxillaBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingSensitivity and SpecificitySentinel Lymph Node BiopsyUltrasonographyAxillary ultrasoundBreast cancerClipped lymph nodeNeoadjuvant therapyTargeted axillary dissectionTherapy response

Identifiers

PMID31897672
OpenAlexW2998467938

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.