Trial reportCancer2022
Occurrence of breast-cancer-related lymphedema after reverse lymphatic mapping and selective axillary dissection versus standard surgical treatment of axilla: A two-arm randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- Lymphatic‑specific magnetic resonance lymphangiography biomarkers for grading lymphedema in animal models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dosimetric Feasibility of Tomotherapy-Based Selective Axillary Sparing Regional Nodal Irradiation for Lymphedema Risk Reduction in Breast Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Quality of life and oncologic safety of axillary reverse mapping in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Incidence of lymphedema related to various cancers.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Review
- Comprehensive strategies in breast cancer-related lymphedema prevention: insights from a multifaceted program.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe need for axillary dissection (AD) is declining, but it is still essential for many patients with nodal involvement who risk developing breast-cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) with lifelong consequences. Previous nonrandomized studies found axillary reverse mapping and selective axillary dissection (ARM-SAD) a safe and feasible way to preserve the arm's lymphatic drainage.
methodsThe present two-arm prospective randomized clinical trial was held at a single comprehensive cancer center to ascertain whether ARM-SAD can reduce the risk of BCRL, compared with standard AD, in patients with node-positive breast cancer. Whatever the type of breast surgery or adjuvant treatments planned, 130 patients with nodal involvement met our inclusion criteria: 65 were randomized for AD and 65 for ARM-SAD. Twelve months after surgery, a physiatrist assessed patients for BCRL and calculated the excess volume of the operated arm. Lymphoscintigraphy was used to assess drainage impairment. Self-reports of any impairment were also recorded.
resultsThe difference in the incidence of BCRL between the two groups was 21% (95% CI, 3-37; p = .03). A significantly lower rate of BCRL after ARM-SAD was confirmed by a multimodal analysis that included the physiatrist's findings, excess arm volume, and lymphoscintigraphic findings, but this was not matched by a significant difference in patients' self-reports.
conclusionsOur findings encourage a change of surgical approach when AD is still warranted. ARM-SAD may be an alternative to standard AD to reduce the treatment-related morbidity.
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.