ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Evaluation of clinical examination, ultrasonography, mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging for detection of axillary metastases in overweight and obese women with early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. 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.
- Axillary evaluation in women with elevated body mass index: evidence, challenges, and perspectives.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate preoperative assessment of axillary lymph node status is essential for guiding treatment in early-stage breast cancer. Because clinical examination alone is often inadequate, imaging modalities such as axillary ultrasonography (AUS), mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are integral to axillary staging. Obese women with breast cancer have poorer oncologic outcomes than do their non-obese counterparts, which raises concerns about potential limitations in diagnostic performance due to a high body mass index (BMI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of clinical examination, AUS, mammography, and MRI in detecting axillary metastases in overweight and obese women with early-stage breast cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy guidelines. We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and imaging modalities for detecting axillary metastasis in overweight and obese women. Methodological quality was assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity data were extracted when available, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently evaluated modality was AUS, which consistently demonstrated preserved diagnostic performance across weight groups; however, one retrospective cohort study reported that its negative predictive value decreases in parallel with increases in BMI. One study involving over 5,000 patients showed that the clinical examination is not significantly affected by the patient BMI. Mammography and MRI showed more variable results, with one study showing MRI performance potentially being impaired in overweight patients, although that study was rated as having a high risk of bias. Across studies, no substantial evidence supported the need for modifying diagnostic protocols based on BMI. Clinical examination and AUS continue to be reliable methods for axillary staging in overweight and obese women with early-stage breast cancer. Given one contradictory cohort study, negative AUS findings in obese patients should be interpreted with caution until standardized AUS criteria and prospective BMI-stratified studies are available. Further high-quality, prospective studies are needed in order to confirm these findings and to inform evidence-based refinements in staging protocols.
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.