SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022
Sentinel lymph node mapping in breast cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis about head to head comparison of cN0 and cN + patients.
Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Changes in the surgery and histopathology of sentinel lymph nodes for breast cancer at the Bács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital (Kecskemét) - Experiences of nearly 30 years and 4000 operations.]Magyar onkologia · 2026Review
- De-escalation of axillary interventions in the management of breast cancer patients following neoadjuvant systemic treatment.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025Review
- Sentinel lymph node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cN0 breast cancer patients: impact on axillary morbidity and survival-a propensity score cohort study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe effectiveness of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in axillary lymph node staging of breast cancer (BCa) patients with initial clinical node positive status (cN +) compared to clinical node negative status (cN0) is not yet known. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the accuracy of SLN mapping following NAC in cN + and cN0 BCa patients.
methodsPubMed and Scopus were comprehensively reviewed to retrieve all the studies that performed SLN mapping/biopsy and standard axillary lymph node dissection on cN0 and cN + BCa patients following NAC. Pooled detection and false negative rates for N0 and N + patients including 95% confidence interval values (95% CI) were evaluated. Odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) of SLN detection failure and false negative results were compared between two groups.
resultsA total of 27 articles were included for SLN detection rate evaluation and 17 for false negative assessment. The OR and RD of detection failure in N + group compared with N0 group following NAC were 2.22 (p = 0.00, 95% CI 1.4-3.4) and 4% (p = 0.00, 95% CI 2-6%), respectively. The OR and RD of false negative rate were 1.6 (p = 0.01, 95% CI 1-2.6) and 8% (p = 0.02, 95% CI 1-14%), respectively.
conclusionSLN mapping in BCa patients following NAC shows high risk of detection failure and high false negative rate of SLN biopsy in cN + patients. In comparison with cN0 BCa patients, SLN mapping and biopsy after NAC was associated with almost two times higher odds of detection failure and false negative results in cN + patients; therefore, this method should not be recommended in this group of patients.
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.