ArticleCancer cytopathology2026
Scrape versus imprint cytology in sentinel lymph nodes of breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy: Does combination add value?
Article in Cancer cytopathology, 2026. 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.
- Scrape versus imprint cytology in sentinel lymph nodes of breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy: Does combination add value?Cancer cytopathology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of cytological methods in intraoperative consultation for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NT), to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of imprint, scrape, and combined cytology, and to assess the reliability of these methods in lymph nodes (LNs) affected by treatment-related changes. Additionally, this study aims to investigate the impact of metastatic tumor size on the diagnostic accuracy of cytological methods.
methodsNinety-two patients who underwent sentinel LN sampling during breast surgery between June 2023 and December 2024 were included in this retrospective study. Diagnostic performance of imprint, scrape, and combined cytology was evaluated according to NT status, metastatic tumor size, and treatment-related changes. Overall accuracy was assessed using Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, with pairwise comparisons performed using DeLong's test.
resultsA total of 300 LNs were evaluated, of which 161 (53.6%) were from patients receiving NT. In this subgroup, imprint cytology showed high specificity but limited sensitivity, whereas scrape and combined cytology demonstrated higher sensitivity and overall diagnostic accuracy. ROC analysis showed significantly higher diagnostic performance for scrape and combined cytology compared with imprint cytology in patients receiving NT (p = .005). Across all subgroup analyses, including metastasis size and therapy-related changes, combined cytology consistently showed the highest sensitivity, whereas imprint cytology maintained the highest specificity.
conclusionScrape cytology showed significantly higher diagnostic performance than imprint cytology, particularly after NT. Combined cytology improved performance compared with imprint cytology but did not significantly outperform scrape cytology.
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.