ReviewCancer medicine2021
Quality assurance review: Intra-operative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2021. 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.
- Predictors of sentinel lymph node metastasis in cT1-2 cN0 breast cancer: A retrospective cohort study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Viability of Whole-Slide Imaging for Intraoperative Touch Imprint Cytological Diagnosis of Axillary Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer Patients.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2025Article
- Quality assurance review: Intra-operative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer.Cancer medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative consultation (IOC) of axillary sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy continues to play a role in selected breast cancer patients. The reported sensitivity rates for intraoperative SLN evaluation in breast cancer range from 47% to 80%. We study a center where the majority of SLN IOC is performed by imprint cytology, and a protocol was established to limit microscopic examination to three slides for a reporting TAT goal of 30 min.
methodsApproval to conduct this study was obtained from the REB. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive SLN cases sent for IOC. Reported IOC assessments of all cases were compared with the final pathology.
resultsOf 164 patients, there were 22 (13%) false negative IOC events, including 15 missed macro-metastasis and 7 missed micro-metastasis. The overall sensitivity for touch imprint in detecting SLNs macro-metastasis was 70.9%. Reporting total turnaround time was on average 3 min longer, whereas sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different in the two protocol periods.
conclusionImplementation of an IOC policy for a maximum of three slides for imprint cytology did not result in a significant impact on the sensitivity, specificity, or total turnaround time for SLN in breast cancer patients. False negative IOC events were mainly due to sampling error. Quality review was made difficult by limited documentation related to the gross handling of the specimens at IOC. System factors identified include insufficient space for the IOC report on the pathology requisition, and the lack of clearly communicated expectations for documentation.
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.