ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Evaluation of different imaging modalities for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients to provide a personalized and optimized therapy algorithm.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06185946 (Evaluation of Different Imaging Modalities in Regional Nodes Staging in Breast Cancer Patient), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of Different Imaging Modalities in Regional Nodes Staging in Breast Cancer Patient
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Potential of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient-Based Lymph Node Classification in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Radiological Features of Axillary Lymph Nodes with CD4 Count and Plasma Viral Load in Patients with HIV.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- A comparative study of dual-layer spectral CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT multi-quantitative parameters in the diagnosis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond the normal breast anatomy: A case of benign bilateral accessory breasts.SAGE open medical case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe reliable detection of tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes for breast cancer [BC] patients plays a decisive role in further therapy. We aimed to find out whether cross-sectional imaging techniques could improve sensitivity for pretherapeutic axillary staging in nodal-positive BC patients compared to conventional imaging such as mammography and sonography.
methodsData for breast cancer patients with tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes having received surgery between 2014 and 2020 were included in this study. All examinations (sonography, mammography, computed tomography [CT] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were interpreted by board-certified specialists in radiology. The sensitivity of different imaging modalities was calculated, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to detect variables influencing the detection of positive lymph nodes.
resultsAll included 382 breast cancer patients had received conventional imaging, while 52.61% of the patients had received cross-sectional imaging. The sensitivity of the combination of all imaging modalities was 68.89%. The combination of MRI and CT showed 63.83% and the combination of sonography and mammography showed 36.11% sensitivity.
conclusionWe could demonstrate that cross-sectional imaging can improve the sensitivity of the detection of tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Only the safe detection of these lymph nodes at the time of diagnosis enables the evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant therapy, thereby allowing access to prognosis and improving new post-neoadjuvant therapies.
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.