ArticleClinical breast cancer2024
The Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy for DCIS.
Article in Clinical breast cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential factors of false-negative sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer and clinical decision-making value of axillary lymph node dissection.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Predictors and nomogram for upstaging to invasive breast carcinoma in ductal carcinomaGland surgery · 2025Article
- Sentinel Node Biopsy Utilization in Wisconsin Women Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery for DCIS.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Predicting sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a study based on the SEER database.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines do not recommend routine sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), except in the setting of mastectomy or microinvasive disease. This study aimed to evaluate national SLNB utilization in women undergoing upfront mastectomy for DCIS, identify predictors of SLNB utilization, and determine the percentage with a positive SLNB.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the NCDB of women with clinical DCIS who underwent upfront mastectomy between 2012 and 2017. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared between patients who underwent SLNB and those who did not. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with SLNB utilization and positive SLNB.
resultsAbout 38,973 patients met inclusion criteria: 34,231 (88%) underwent SLNB and 4742 (12%) had no surgical axillary staging. Most patients were age 50-69 (51%), non-Hispanic White (71%), with private insurance (66%). On multivariate analysis, older patients were less likely to receive SLNB (P < .01), while patients with higher grade DCIS were more likely to undergo SLNB (P < .01). In those who underwent SLNB (n = 34,231), only 1,149 (3.4%) had nodal involvement. Non-Hispanic Black patients had increased odds of a positive SLNB (P < .01), while those with estrogen receptor positive disease were less likely to be node positive (OR 0.68, P < .001).
conclusionsWhile 88% of patients had a SLNB, only 3.4% were found to be node positive. Given this low rate, it is reasonable to consider SLNB omission in select patients with low grade, hormone receptor positive DCIS undergoing upfront mastectomy.
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.