Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35249123›Full record

SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022

Axillary lymph node dissection vs. sentinel node biopsy for early-stage clinically node-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stamatios Petousis, Panagiotis Christidis, Chrysoula Margioula-Siarkou, Anastasios Liberis, Eleftherios Vavoulidis, Georgia Margioula-Siarkou, Anastasia Vatopoulou, Alexios Papanikolaou, George Mavromatidis, Konstantinos Dinas

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stamatios Petousis2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece. petousisstamatios@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5564-0406
Panagiotis Christidis4th Academic Department of General Surgery, G. Papanikolaou General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Chrysoula Margioula-Siarkou2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Anastasios Liberis2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Eleftherios Vavoulidis2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Georgia Margioula-Siarkou4th Academic Department of General Surgery, G. Papanikolaou General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Anastasia VatopoulouAristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Alexios Papanikolaou2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece.
George Mavromatidis2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Konstantinos Dinas2nd Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54624, Thessaloníki, Greece.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ΟBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing survival outcomes between systematic axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) vs sentinel lymph node and axillary lymph node dissection only if sentinel positive (SLN ± ALND) in early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. ΜETHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Included studies were prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing survival outcomes of ALND vs. SLN ± ALND in early-stage, node-negative breast cancer patients. Patients enrolled were only those with tumor size lower than 4 cm, clinically negative nodes and treated with breast-conservative surgery. Primary endpoints were locoregional recurrence, overall death and cancer-related death.

resultsThere were four studies included in the analysis, enrolling overall 2982 patients, of which 1494 in ALND arm and 1488 in the SLN ± ALND arm. No statistically significant difference was observed in locoregional recurrence, breast cancer-related death and overall death. Locoregional recurrence was observed in 2.8% (ALND) vs. 4.1% (SLND ± ALND), (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.20-2.30). Overall death rate was 7.0% vs. 6.8% respectively, (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.39, I

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsSentinel Lymph NodeAxillaFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyAxillaryBreast cancerLymphadenectomyOutcomesRecurrenceSentinel nodeSurvival

Identifiers

PMID35249123
OpenAlexW4220739766

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.