Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36214890›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023

Current trends in diagnostic and therapeutic management of the axilla in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy: results of the German-wide NOGGO MONITOR 24 survey.

Maggie Banys-Paluchowski, Michael Untch, Natalia Krawczyk, Maria Thurmann, Thorsten Kühn, Jalid Sehouli, Maria Luisa Gasparri, Jana de Boniface, Oreste Davide Gentilini, Elmar Stickeler and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Axillary management in patients with cN + breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pattern of practice in Italy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

14 authors.

Maggie Banys-PaluchowskiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. Maggie.Banys-Paluchowski@uksh.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2374-9482
Michael UntchDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany.
Natalia KrawczykDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Maria ThurmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany.
Thorsten KühnDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany.
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology With Center for Oncological Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany.
Maria Luisa GasparriDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Ospedale Regionale Di Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland.
Jana de BonifaceDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Oreste Davide GentiliniBreast Surgery Unit, San Raffaele Hospital Milan, Milan, Italy.
Elmar StickelerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Nina DitschDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Achim RodyDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Peter PaluchowskiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Breast Cancer Center, Regio Klinikum Pinneberg, Pinneberg, Germany.
Jens-Uwe BlohmerDepartment of Gynecology and Breast Cancer Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn the last 2 decades, the optimal management of the axilla in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been one of the most frequently discussed topics. Little is known about the attitudes of surgeons/radiologists towards new developments such as targeted axillary dissection. Therefore, the NOGGO conducted a survey to evaluate the current approach to axillary management.

methodsA standardized digital questionnaire was sent out to > 200 departments in Germany between 7/2021 and 5/2022. The survey was supported by EUBREAST.

resultsIn total, 116 physicians completed the survey. In cN0 patients scheduled to receive NACT, 89% of respondents recommended sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after NACT. In case of ypN1mi(sn), 44% advised no further therapy, while 31% proposed ALND and 25% axillary irradiation. 64% of respondents recommended a minimally invasive axillary biopsy to cN + patients. TAD was used at the departments of 82% of respondents and was offered to all cN + patients converting to ycN0 by 57% and only to selected patients, usually based on the number of suspicious nodes at time of presentation, by 43%. The most common marking technique was a clip/coil. 67% estimated that the detection rate of their marker was very good or good.

conclusionThis survey shows a heterogenous approach towards axillary management in the neoadjuvant setting in Germany. Most respondents follow current guidelines. Since only two-thirds of respondents experienced the detection rate of the marker used at their department as (very) good, future studies should focus on the comparative evaluation of different marking techniques.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyAxillaFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesNeoplasm StagingSentinel Lymph Node BiopsySurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerBreast ultrasoundNeoadjuvant chemotherapySurveyTargeted axillary dissection

Identifiers

PMID36214890
PMCPMC10110637

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.