Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34583723›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2021

Axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology to predict clinically relevant nodal burden in breast cancer patients.

Isabela Panzeri Carlotti Buzatto, Francisco José Cândido Dos Reis, Jurandyr Moreira de Andrade, Tamara Cristina Gomes Ferraz Rodrigues, Jéssica Maria Camargo Borba, Amanda Homse Netto, Marina Sconzo Polydoro, Daniel Guimarães Tiezzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Escalating de-escalation in breast cancer treatment.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Isabela Panzeri Carlotti BuzattoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Francisco José Cândido Dos ReisDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Jurandyr Moreira de AndradeDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Tamara Cristina Gomes Ferraz RodriguesDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Jéssica Maria Camargo BorbaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Amanda Homse NettoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Marina Sconzo PolydoroDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Daniel Guimarães TiezziDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Disease Division, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3.900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. dtiezzi@usp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2660-0093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAxillary lymph node involvement is one important prognostic factor in breast cancer, but the way to access this information has been modified over the years. This study evaluated if axillary ultrasound (US) coupled with fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) can accurately predict clinically relevant node metastasis in patients with breast cancer, and thus assist clinical decisions

methodsThis is a cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection of 241 individuals (239 women and 2 men) with unilateral operable breast cancer who were submitted to preoperative axillary assessment by physical exam, US and FNAC if suspicious nodes by imaging. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the methods. We compared the patient's characteristics using chi-square test, parametrics and non-parametrics statistics according to the variable.

resultsThe most sensible method was US (0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.69), and the most specific was US coupled with FNAC (0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Only 2.7% of the patients with normal axillary US had more than 2 metastatic nodes in the axillary lymph node dissection, against 50% of the patients with suspicious lymph nodes in the US and positive FNAC.

conclusionsAxillary US coupled with FNAC can sort patients who have a few metastatic nodes at most from those with heavy axillary burden and could be one more tool to initially evaluate patients and define treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAxillaBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySentinel Lymph Node BiopsyAxillary ultrasoundBreast cancerFine-needle aspiration cytologyLymph node metastasis

Identifiers

PMID34583723
PMCPMC8480059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.