SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2021
Axillary dissection versus axillary observation for low risk, clinically node-negative invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose1. To systematically analyse studies comparing survival outcomes between axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND) and axilla observation (Obs), in women with low-risk, clinically node-negative breast cancer. 2. To consider results in the context of current axillary surgery de-escalation trials and studies.
methods9 eligible studies were identified, 6 RCTs and 3 non-randomized studies (4236 women in total). Outcomes assessed: overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The logged (ln) hazard ratio (HR) was calculated and used as the statistic of interest. Data was grouped by follow-up.
resultsMeta-analyses found no significant difference in OS at 5, 10 and 25-years follow-up (5-year ln HR = 0.08, 95% CI - 0.09, 0.25, 10-year ln HR = 0.33, 95% CI - 0.07, 0.72, 25-year ln HR = 0.00, 95% CI - 0.18, 0.19). ALND caused improvement in DFS at 5-years follow-up (ln HR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.03, 0.29), this was not demonstrated at 10 and 25-years follow-up (10-year ln HR = 0.07, 95% CI - 0.09, 0.23, 25-year ln HR = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.21, 0.16). Studies supporting ALND for DFS at 5-years follow-up had greater relative chemotherapy use in the ALND cohort.
conclusionALND does not cause a significant improvement in OS in women with clinically node-negative breast cancer. ALND may improve DFS in the short term by tailoring a proportion of patients towards chemotherapy. Our evidence suggests that when the administration of systemic therapy is balanced between the two arms, axillary de-escalation studies will likely find no difference in OS or DFS.
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.