ArticleScientific reports2024
Optimal management of breast cancer with physical exam negative/radiological abnormal axilla.
Article in Scientific 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.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For breast cancer patients with physical exam node negative but radiological finding node abnormal (cN0/rNa), the NCCN and ASCO guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as the first-line axillary staging. However, patients who undergo surgery firstly may be upstaged to pathological II-III status, and these patients happen to be the adaptive population of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). There is no consensus on the optimal management of cN0/rNa patients. The aim is to explore the optimal management strategy of these patients. We performed a retrospective real-world study of 1414 cN0/rNa patients from June 2014 to October 2022. There were 1003 patients underwent surgery first and 411 patients underwent surgery after NAT. We analyzed the real-world conditions of these patients, compared axilla tumor burden between these two groups. In addition, we compared benefit ratio of axillary surgery and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) de-escalation under the two strategies. Among 1003 patients underwent surgery first, the positive and negative rates of fine needle aspiration (FNA) were 18.5% and 81.5%, respectively. There were 66.1% had ≤ 2 lymph nodes+. There were 40.8% of FNA+ patients could be exempted from ALND underwent surgery first. In 411 patients underwent surgery after NAT, the FNA positive and negative rates were 60.8% and 49.2%, respectively. There were 54.4% of FNA+ patients achieved axilla pathologic complete response (apCR) and could omit ALND after NAT. The apCR was 67.3% in HER2+/TNBC subtypes. According to the NSABP-B51 trial, there were 0 and 54.4% of FNA+ patients could omit RNI among surgery first and after NAT, respectively. Among 1-2 sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive patients underwent surgery first, with a median follow-up 49 months, there was no difference of survival benefit between SLNB-only and SLNB-ALND. Compared with 1-2 SLN+ patients without RNI, RNI could bring better invasive disease-free survival (97.38% vs. 89.36%, P = 0.046) and breast cancer special survival (100% vs. 94.68%, P = 0.020). It is safe to perform SLNB omitting ALND when detected 1-2 positive SLNs in cN0/rNa patients. Patients with HER2+/TNBC subtypes underwent surgery after NAT had more chance to benefit from dual de-escalation, including axillary surgery and RNI de-escalation.
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.