ReviewCancers2025
Supraclavicular Lymph Node Dissection in Breast Cancer with Synchronous Supraclavicular Metastases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2025. 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.
- Predictors and prevalence of lateral supraclavicular lymph node metastases on [Frontiers in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSynchronous ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastases (sISLMs) in breast cancer are rare and associated with poor prognosis. The optimal locoregional treatment strategy remains unclear, particularly regarding the role of supraclavicular lymph node dissection (SLND).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis, including studies published up to end December 2023, to compare the outcomes of SLND combined with radiotherapy (RT) and systemic therapy (ST), SLND with ST alone, and ST alone, using RT + ST as the reference.
resultsTen studies involving 3346 patients were included for overall survival (OS) analysis, and six studies were included for disease-free survival (DFS). SLND + RT + ST showed similar OS and DFS compared to RT + ST. Sensitivity analyses revealed that SLND limited to level V improved OS (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29-0.77), while more extensive dissections (level V+) worsened outcomes (HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.10-1.80).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that selective SLND may benefit certain patients, but broader application should be approached with caution pending results from future randomized trials.
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.