Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38597154›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2024

De-escalation of axillary treatment in the event of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy: nationwide registry study (BOOG 2013-07).

Sabine R de Wild, Lori M van Roozendaal, Johannes H W de Wilt, Thijs van Dalen, Jos A van der Hage, Frederieke H van Duijnhoven, Janine M Simons, Robert-Jan Schipper, Linda de Munck, Sander M J van Kuijk and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

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

20 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabine R de WildMaastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6110-2308
Lori M van RoozendaalDepartment of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Johannes H W de WiltDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6773-9668
Thijs van DalenDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jos A van der HageDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Frederieke H van DuijnhovenDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Janine M SimonsMaastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Robert-Jan SchipperDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Linda de MunckDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2930-509X
Sander M J van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2796-729X
Liesbeth J BoersmaMaastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Sabine C LinnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marc B I LobbesDepartment of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands.
Philip M P PoortmansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Netwerk, Antwerp, Belgium.
Vivianne C G Tjan-HeijnenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Koen K B T van de VijverDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jolanda de VriesDepartment of Psychology and Health, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
A Helen WestenbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapiegroep Arnhem, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Luc J A StrobbeDepartment of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marjolein L SmidtMaastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLLeiden University · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLRadiotherapiegroep · NLTilburg University · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

Dutch Cancer Society 2013-5920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials have demonstrated the safety of omitting completion axillary lymph node dissection in patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer operated with breast-conserving surgery who have limited metastatic burden in the sentinel lymph node. The aim of this registry study was to provide insight into the oncological safety of omitting completion axillary treatment in patients operated with mastectomy who have limited-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis.

methodsWomen diagnosed in 2013-2014 with unilateral cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with one to three sentinel lymph node metastases (pN1mi-pN1a), were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and classified by axillary treatment: no completion axillary treatment, completion axillary lymph node dissection, regional radiotherapy, or completion axillary lymph node dissection followed by regional radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year regional recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free interval and overall survival, among others.

resultsIn total, 1090 patients were included (no completion axillary treatment, 219 (20.1%); completion axillary lymph node dissection, 437 (40.1%); regional radiotherapy, 327 (30.0%); completion axillary lymph node dissection and regional radiotherapy, 107 (9.8%)). Patients in the group without completion axillary treatment had more favourable tumour characteristics and were older. The overall 5-year regional recurrence rate was 1.3%, and did not differ significantly between the groups. The recurrence-free interval was also comparable among groups. The group of patients who did not undergo completion axillary treatment had statistically significantly worse 5-year overall survival, owing to a higher percentage of non-cancer deaths.

conclusionIn this registry study of patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with low-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis, the 5-year regional recurrence rate was low and comparable between patients with and without completion axillary treatment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsSentinel Lymph NodeAxillaFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMastectomyMastectomy, SegmentalRegistriesSentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Identifiers

PMID38597154
PMCPMC11004788
OpenAlexW4394675167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.