ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Clinical study of
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 and objective: Whether sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer is an alternative to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) remains controversial. In this study, the results of SLNB performed with Methods: A retrospective analysis of 106 breast cancer patients who underwent post-NAC SLNB from August 2019 to August 2023 at Fujian Provincial Hospital, where SLNB was performed using Results: 70 cases were included in the dual-tracer group, with a detection rate of 97.14% (68/70), an average number of detected SLNs of (6.06 ± 5.29), a sensitivity of 92.86% (26/28), a false negative rate of 7.14% (2/28), and an accuracy of 97.14% (68/70). 36 cases were included in the single-tracer group, with a detection rate of 66.67% (24/36), an average number of detected SLNs of (3.17 ± 3.073), a sensitivity of 54.55% (11/22), a false negative rate of 45.45% (10/22), and an accuracy of 72.22% (26/36). There were significant differences in the detection rate and the average number of detected SLNs between the two groups (detection rate: P=0.004; detection number: P=0.038), but there were no significant differences in the sensitivity, accuracy, and false negative rate (P>0.05). A total of 70 patients were examined for internal mammary lymph node biopsy with dual tracer, and 22 patients were detected with an imaging rate of 31.42% (22/70), and a detection rate of 72.72% (16/22). Conclusions: For patients with breast cancer, the dual-tracer method combining radionuclide and dye for SNLB after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can improve the detection rate of sentinel lymph nodes and reduce the false-negative rate. In the long term, the quality of life of patients can be helped to improve by this approach. Compared with other tracers,
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.