ArticleEJNMMI reports2024
Survival and inferential analysis in patients with locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent sentinel lymph node biopsy: prospective single-center study.
Article in EJNMMI reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lymph node staging is the major prognostic factor in breast cancer patients. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) allows an exactly axillar staging in patients with early disease, but not in locally advance breast cancer (LABC). Our aim was to study, the feasibility and accuracy of the SLNB technique with and without axillar lymphadenectomy (LDN) and with lymph node clipping after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), in patients with LABC. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients diagnosed with LABC, scheduled for NAC and subsequent surgery and SLNB. Subsequently the patients were scheduled for adjuvant chemotherapy/hormonotherapy and radiotherapy according with the postsurgical results. Main end points were overall survival (OS) disease-free survival (DFS), mortality, SLNB identification rate (IR), sensitivity, false negative rate (FNR) of SLNB versus LDN, negative predictive value (NPV) and overall accuracy.
resultsOur IR with different techniques was between 89.9 and 100%. OS was between 89 and 97%. DFS was between 89.8 and 96.8%. Sensitivity was between 75 and 100%. NPV was between 89.6 and 100%. FNR was between 0 and 25%; and accuracy was between 66 and 72%. We found that survival was lower (p < 0.05) in patients with triple negative and Luminal B/HER2 intrinsic subtype; with progression or major partial response in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) results at the end of NAC and in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation.
conclusionsOur study presents excellent results of SLNB alone in patients with LABC with complete nodal response with an OS and DFS > 95%. The FNR is very high in partial responders, so we cannot recommend the SLNB alone in LABC. We recommend, in cN+ patients, axillar clipping, SLNB and LDN because in more than 50% of the patients with axillar clipping, this was not found, and because in 36% of the patients with negative LDN, the SLN (Sentinel Lymph Node) obtained was the only positive node, so these techniques together decrease the FNR and improve the node staging, OS and DFS. This study is the first prospective study that assess OS and DFS in patients with LABC, all submitted to SLNB.
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.