ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Targeted axillary dissection: worldwide variations in clinical practice.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Axillary response and diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer (retrospective single center study).Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of Targeted Axillary Dissection with Sentinel Node Biopsy Alone on Nodal Recurrence for Patients who have Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: from historical axillary surgery to updated advances in the preoperative diagnosis and axillary management.BMC surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Shear-wave elastography as a supplementary tool for axillary staging in patients undergoing breast cancer diagnosis.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Navigating axillary staging post-neoadjuvant systemic therapy: innovations, efficacy, and oncologic safety.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTargeted axillary dissection (TAD) for the axillary staging of clinically node-positive (cN +) breast cancer patients converting to clinically node negative post neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), has gained popularity due to its minimal false negative rate and low arm morbidity. The aim of this study is to shed more light on the variation in the clinical practice globally in terms of indications and perceived limitations of TAD.
methodsA panel of expert breast surgeons constructed a structured questionnaire comprising of 18 questions and asked surgeons worldwide for their opinions and routine practice on TAD. The questionnaire was electronically distributed and answers were collected between May 1st and August 1st 2022.
resultsResponses included 137 entries from 36 countries. Of them, 73.7% consider TAD for cN + patients planned to receive NAC. Among them, the greatest number of respondents (45%) perform the procedure for tumours up to T3, whereas 27% regardless of T-stage. The majority (42%) perform TAD on patients with 1-3 positive nodes and only 30% consider TAD when matted nodes are present. HER2 positive and Triple Negative subtypes are more likely to undergo TAD than Luminal A and B (86%, 79.1%, 39.5%, and 62.8%, respectively). Maximum acceptable lymph node burden is median 3 nodes for any subtype with a tendency to accept more positive nodes for Triple Negative.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the differences in current practice regarding TAD as well as the fact that the biology of the tumour heavily affects the method of axillary staging.
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.