Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34739639›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022

Omitting SLNB in Breast Cancer: Is a Nomogram the Answer?

A M Moorman, E J Th Rutgers, E A Kouwenhoven

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A M MoormanDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands. yvettemoorman@gmail.com.
E J Th RutgersDepartment of Surgery, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek/The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E A KouwenhovenDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands.
Ziekenhuis Groep Twente · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsSentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is standard care as a staging procedure in patients with invasive breast cancer. The axillary recurrence rate, even after positive SLNB, is low. This raises serious doubts regarding the clinical value of SLNB in early breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to select patients with low suspected axillary burden in whom SLNB might be omitted. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 2015 primary breast cancer patients between 2007 and 2015, with 982 patients allocated to the training and 961 to the validation cohort. Variables associated with nodal disease were analyzed and used to build a nomogram for predicting nodal disease.

resultsA total of 32.8% of patients had macrometastatic disease. A predictive model was constructed based on age, cN0, morphology, grade, multifocality, and tumor size with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83. Considering a false-negative rate of 5%, 32.8% of patients could be spared axillary surgery. In a subanalysis of patients with relatively favorable characteristics, 26.8% had less than 5% chance of macrometastases.

conclusionsWe present a model with excellent predictive value that can select one-third of patients in whom SLNB is deemed not necessary because of less than 5% chance of nodal involvement. Whether missing 1 in 20 patients with macrometastatic disease is worthwhile balanced against preventing side-effects of the SLN procedure remains to be established. A number of ongoing large prospective trials evaluating the outcome of omitting SLNB are awaited. Meanwhile, this nomogram may be used for individual decision-making.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyAxillaFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesNomogramsProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID34739639
OpenAlexW3209009565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.