ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Evaluating the survival outcomes in clinical node stage 2 and 3 breast cancer patients with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: sentinel lymph node biopsy alone vs. axillary lymph node dissection.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07643584 (DEMAND - A Phase II Trial of De-Escalation of Axillary Management in Advanced Nodal Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
DEMAND - A Phase II Trial of De-Escalation of Axillary Management in Advanced Nodal Disease
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Research on Omitting Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy after Neoadjuvant Therapy in cN1 Breast Cancer Patients.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Oncologic safety of breast-conserving surgery in node-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- De-escalation of axillary surgery after neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: long-term outcomes of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus complete axillary lymph node dissection.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: With the advancement of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), the reliance on surgical removal of axillary for high-risk breast cancer is diminishing. However, there is a lack of data on the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) alone in patients with clinical node stages 2 and 3 who show a favorable response to NAC. This study aims to compare the oncologic outcomes of SNB alone versus SNB combined with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in this patient cohort. Methods: Conducted at Asan Medical Center, this retrospective study analyzed data from breast cancer patients treated with NAC between 2008 and 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare patients based on treatment approach. SNB was performed on patients demonstrating significant response to NAC with minimal nodal involvement and ALND was reserved for cases with negative SNB results, as determined by the operating surgeon. The study evaluated oncologic safety by comparing axillary recurrence-free survival (ARFS), regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS), and overall survival (OS) across surgical methods. Results: Over a median follow-up of 44 months, the overall axillary recurrence rate was 2.3%, and the univariate and multivariate analyses showed no statistically significant differences in ARFS, RRFS, and OS between the groups. Propensity score-matched analysis further confirmed the absence of significant differences in 5-year ARFS, RRFS, and OS outcomes between the SNB-only and ALND groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that performing sentinel node biopsy alone is feasible in patients with clinical node stage 2-3 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The findings suggest the potential for de-escalation of axillary management in these patients, which could be further explored in follow-up studies.
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.