ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2020
Sentinel Node Biopsy in Early Breast Cancer Patients with Palpable Axillary Node.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative evaluation of metastatic SLNs with NIRF imaging assisted by artificial intelligence in breast cancers.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Cytoplasmic and nuclear programmed death ligand 1 expression in peritumoral stromal cells in breast cancer: Prognostic and predictive value.World journal of experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer and their correlation with the expression of polyligand proteoglycan-1.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSentinel lymph node biopsy is a reliable method for evaluation of the axillary lymph node status in early stage breast cancer patients with non-palpable lymph nodes. The present study evaluated the status of sentinel and non-sentinel lymph nodes in T1T2 patients with palpable axillary lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred and two women with early breast cancer were investigated in this study. Patients were selected for axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy and then surgery .Then the rates of false negative and true positive, and diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph nodes biopsy were evaluated. In addition, the hormone receptors status of the tumor was determined through IHC and data was analyzed in SPSS21.
resultsIn this study, the mean age of the patients was 49 years, 85% had invasive ductal carcinoma in their pathology reports, 77% were ER/PR positive, 30% HER2 positive and 9.8% triple negative and 69% had KI67<14%. In frozen pathology, 15.7 and 84.3% were sentinel positive and negative, respectively, and in the final pathology, 41 and 58.8% were sentinel positive and negative, respectively. This difference arises from the false negative rate of the frozen pathology, which was about 31.3%. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the frozen section were 24, 90 and 43%, respectively. Lymphovascular invasion is an important effective factor in the involvement of sentinel and non-sentinel lymph nodes. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of sentinel and non-sentinel lymph nodes involvement was higher in receptor positive patients and those with KI67>14% (p<0.002) whereas the rate of involvement was lower in triple negative patients.
conclusionSentinel node biopsy can be used in a significant percentage of breast cancer patients with palpable and reactive axillary lymph nodes.
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.