ArticleCureus2021
Sentinel Node Biopsy in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Is it Justifiable?
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of Surgical Axillary Staging in Microinvasive Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A National Cancer Database Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Is the Superparamagnetic Approach Equal to Radioisotopes in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy? The Over-Collecting Node Issue in Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor invasive breast cancer, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is an acceptable alternative to axillary node clearance (ANC), although in the recent era, its role is under review. In ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the benefit of SNB is even less well defined. Despite this, guidelines still recommend that it is performed in selected cases of DCIS. The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of performing SNB in DCIS.
methodsPatients with a diagnosis of DCIS who underwent axillary staging with SNB between 2008-2019 in our large volume tertiary centre were identified and included in the study.
resultsOut of the 48 patients who were identified, four patients had a positive SNB (8%). Two of those patients were found to have micro metastatic disease. None of the patients with a positive SNB had local or systemic recurrence (median follow up: 40 months). One non-breast cancer-related mortality was reported. Two patients were identified who had recurrent disease, one with an invasive recurrence in the breast, and the other with systemic recurrence in the form of bone disease. Both of these patients had a negative SNB.
conclusionOur results confirm that performing axillary staging with SNB in DCIS is not justifiable, as it does not affect patient outcomes. This supports the emerging evidence that being more surgically conservative may decrease morbidity without affecting patient survival.
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.