SynthesisThe oncologist2025
Can axillary lymph node dissection be omitted in breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive sentinel nodes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 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.
- Omission of completion axillary dissection in clinically node-negative breast cancer with 1-2 metastatic sentinel lymph nodes.World journal of surgical 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAxillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has traditionally been recommended for breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). Although omitting ALND is now widely accepted for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with limited sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) involvement, based on trials such as Z0011, evidence for patients undergoing total mastectomy (TM) remains limited and conflicting. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether ALND can be safely omitted in TM patients with 1-2 positive SLNs by comparing survival outcomes between ALND and SLNB alone groups.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (up to December 2024) identified 29 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 23 observational) involving a total of 146 407 patients. Survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS), were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using I2 statistic, Begg's test, and Egger's test. Subgroup analyses were performed based on study design, type of surgical (TM vs. BCS), and pathological T-stage.
resultsOverall, no significant differences in OS (OR = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-1.04), DFS (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.20), or RFS (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.89-1.30) were observed between ALND and SLNB alone groups. However, in the TM subgroup, ALND was associate with improved OS (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.90). Similarly, patients with T3-4 tumors demonstrate better OS outcomes with ALND. No significant differences in DFS or RFS were observed across subgroups.
conclusionSLNB alone provides comparable survival outcomes to ALND in early breast cancer (EBC) patients with 1-2 positive SLNs, supporting its safety in those undergoing BCS. However, while our analysis suggests a potential survival advantage with ALND in TM patients and those with advanced T-stage (T3-4), this observation requires cautious interpretation due to potential selection bias, residual confounding from unmeasured variables and confounding by indication where ALND may reflect more intensive multimodal therapy rather than causally improving OS. Therefore, these subgroup findings should not be considered practice-changing at this stage. Further high-quality prospective studies are warranted to validate these associations and optimize patient selection criteria.
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.