ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Comparison of ultrasound visibility and retrieval success of two ultrasound-visible clips in targeted axillary dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTargeted axillary dissection (TAD) is a less invasive alternative to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer who convert to node-negative status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). However, the effect of preoperative ultrasound visibility of different clip types on TAD outcomes remains unclear.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with biopsy-proven axillary node-positive breast cancer who underwent NAC followed by TAD between August 2017 and December 2024. Two ultrasound-visible clips, the UltraCor™ Twirl™ (Twirl) and HydroMARK™, were evaluated. Outcomes included ultrasound visibility, clipped node retrieval success, localization techniques, and false-negative rate (FNR).
resultsTwenty-nine patients were included (Twirl, n = 15; HydroMARK, n = 14). Ultrasound visibility was higher with Twirl than with HydroMARK (86.7% versus 64.3%; p = 0.330). All Twirl cases underwent combined wire and dye-guided localization, whereas HydroMARK cases used multiple localization techniques. Retrieval success reached 100% with Twirl and 78.6% with HydroMARK (p = 0.199). When clips were visible on ultrasound, retrieval rates were high for both clips at 100% for Twirl and 88.9% for HydroMARK (p = 0.850). When clips were not clearly visible, Twirl maintained 100% retrieval compared with 60.0% for HydroMARK (p = 0.895). Among patients who underwent scheduled ALND, the FNR of TAD was 0% (0/6).
conclusionsPreoperative ultrasound visibility of the clip was associated with successful clip-based TAD. Twirl showed more consistent ultrasound visibility and retrieval success than HydroMARK, which suggests that Twirl may be a more reliable clip for routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42503074What 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.