Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8932348›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer1996

A comparison of axillary node status between cancers detected at the prevalence and first incidence breast screening rounds.

P A Holland, J Walls, C R Boggis, F Knox, A D Baildam, N J Bundred

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P A HollandDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of South Manchester, UK.
J Walls
C R Boggis
F Knox
A D Baildam
N J Bundred
Withington Community Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screen-detected breast cancers are smaller than those detected in symptomatic populations and, for any given size, they are associated with fewer lymph node metastases. The management of axillary lymph nodes in patients with screen-detected breast cancer remains controversial. We have previously reported that prevalence (initial screen)-detected cancers are associated with nodal metastases in 17.4% of cases overall. Cancers < or = 10 mm, of any grade, are associated with metastases in only 5% of cases, and grade I cancers <30 mm are not associated with metastases. This led to our recommendation that axillary surgery is unnecessary for these groups of women. The present study compared the nodal status of cancers detected at the prevalence and first incidence (second) screens in order to determine whether our recommendation is appropriate for cancers detected at the first incidence screen. Overall, 30.1% of cancers detected in the first incidence screen presented axillary nodal metastases. At all size ranges, cancers detected at the first incidence screen were associated with significantly more lymph node metastases than prevalence-detected cancers. In particular, cancers < or = 10 mm were associated with metastases in 14.3% of cases. With the possible exception of grade I cancers, we believe that surgical staging of the axilla is essential for cancers detected at the first incidence screen, irrespective of size.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID8932348
PMCPMC2074862
OpenAlexW2048591033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.