SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Prediction of sentinel lymph node status in patients with early breast cancer using breast imaging as an alternative to surgical staging-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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.
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPrediction models for sentinel lymph node (SLN) status could potentially substitute surgical axillary staging in patients with early breast cancer. Several imaging modalities have been used with various feature extraction and selection approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate prediction models for SLN status based on breast imaging in patients with early breast cancer to summarize the current evidence and to identify areas requiring additional research.
methodsThe systematic literature search strategy was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework: P: female patients with clinically node-negative invasive breast cancer scheduled to undergo primary surgery; I: breast imaging; C: upfront sentinel lymph node biopsy; and O: prediction model performance regarding SLN status. The search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases in March 2024. The screening of records, data collection, and bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool and the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model to assess performance and heterogeneity overall and in subgroups.
resultsThe literature search resulted in the inclusion of 32 articles with 11,464 patients in total. Five imaging categories were included: ultrasound (n = 8), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n = 17), mammography (n = 1), positron emission tomography computed tomography (n = 1), and multiple modalities (n = 5). Four studies, assessed as having a high risk of bias, were excluded from the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed heterogeneity in overall performance, except for MRI-based studies, with a pooled area under the curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.82-0.87). Meta-regression indicated that MRI and model calibration assessment upon validation contributed to heterogeneity.
conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that prediction models using breast imaging-particularly MRI-could serve as a noninvasive alternative to surgical axillary staging in patients with early breast cancer. The results illustrate the heterogeneity between studies and the need for additional high-quality studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022301852, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.
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.