ArticleAmerican journal of surgery2025
Examining the false-negative rate of a negative axillary node ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy in breast cancer patients undergoing upfront surgery.
Article in American journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Potential of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient-Based Lymph Node Classification in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A multimodal ultrasound-based model combining tumor radiomics and axillary lymph node morphologic classification for predicting axillary nodal burden in breast cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAxillary assessment in breast cancer is key to determining an upfront surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) approach. We investigated the false-negative rate (FNR) of axillary-node ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (US-CNBx) and the surgical management of pN + patients.
methodsThis single-institution study from 2010 to 2020 included patients with benign findings on US-CNBx and upfront surgery. Statistical analyses were performed via t-tests and chi-squared tests.
results95 axillae met inclusion, 23 were pN+, resulting in a US-CNBx FNR of 24.2 %. pN + patients more frequently had cT2-T3 tumors vs pN0 patients (43.5 % vs 27.8 %, p = 0.03). Of the 23 pN + patients, 9 underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and 14 underwent mastectomy. In those with BCS, 7 had 1-2 positive nodes, 2 had ≥3 nodes; 3 received an ALND. In those with mastectomies, 12 had 1-2 positive nodes, 2 had ≥3 positive nodes; 6 received an ALND.
conclusionIn this cohort, US-CNBx had a FNR of 24.2 %. pN + patients had a greater frequency of cT2-cT3 tumors, therefore clinicians should be cognizant of potential occult nodal disease despite negative CNBx when deciding management.
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.