Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31970894›Full record

Trial reportCancer medicine2020

Initial results of a novel technique of clipped node localization in breast cancer patients postneoadjuvant chemotherapy: Skin Mark clipped Axillary nodes Removal Technique (SMART trial).

Geok Hoon Lim, Sze Yiun Teo, Mihir Gudi, Ruey Pyng Ng, Jinnie Pang, Yia Swam Tan, Yien Sien Lee, John C Allen, Lester Chee Hao Leong

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  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. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Geok Hoon LimBreast Department, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5296-3437
Sze Yiun TeoDepartment of Diagnostic & Interventional Imaging, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Mihir GudiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Ruey Pyng NgDivision of Nursing, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jinnie PangBreast Department, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Yia Swam TanBreast Department, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Yien Sien LeeDepartment of Diagnostic & Interventional Imaging, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
John C AllenDuke-NUS Medical School, Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Singapore, Singapore.
Lester Chee Hao LeongDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-9888-7134
KK Women's and Children's Hospital · SGDuke-NUS Medical School · SGSingapore General Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRemoval of clipped nodes can improve sentinel node biopsy accuracy in breast cancer patients post neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, the current methods of clipped node localization have limitations. We evaluated the feasibility of a novel clipped node localization and removal technique by preoperative skin marking of clipped nodes and removal by the Skin Mark clipped Axillary nodes Removal Technique (SMART), with the secondary aim of assessing the ultrasound visibility of the various clips in the axillary nodes after NACT.

methodsInvasive breast cancer patients with histologically metastatic axillary nodes, going for NACT, and ≤3 sonographically abnormal axillary nodes were recruited. All abnormal nodes had clips inserted. Patients with M1 disease were excluded. Post-NACT, patients underwent SMART and axillary lymph node dissection. Specimen radiography and pathological analyses were performed to confirm the clipped node presence. Success, complication rates of SMART, and ultrasound visibility of the various clips were assessed.

resultsTwenty-five clipped nodes in 14 patients underwent SMART without complications. The UltraCor Twirl, hydroMARK, UltraClip Dual Trigger, and UltraClip were removed in 13/13 (100%), 7/9 (77.8%), 1/2 (50.0%), and 0/1 (0%), respectively (P = .0103) with UltraCor Twirl having the best ultrasound visibility and removal rate. Removal of three clipped nodes in the same patient (P = .0010) and deeply seated clipped nodes (P = .0167) were associated with SMART failure.

conclusionSkin Mark clipped Axillary nodes Removal Technique is feasible for removing clipped nodes post-NACT, with 100% observed success rate, using the UltraCor Twirl marker in patients with <3 not deeply seated clipped nodes. Larger studies are needed for validation.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedAxillaBreast NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMastectomyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingSentinel Lymph NodeSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyUltrasonographyaxillary lymph node dissectionaxillary stagingbreast cancerneoadjuvant chemotherapytargeted axillary dissectionultrasound visible clip

Identifiers

PMID31970894
PMCPMC7064023
OpenAlexW3003069604

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.