Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vázquez Juan C, Piñero Antonio, de Castro Francisco Javier, Lluch Ana, Martín Miguel, Barnadas Agustí, Alba Emilio, Rodríguez-Lescure Álvaro, Rojo Federico, Giménez Julia, Solá Iván, Quintana María Jesús, Bonfill Xavier, Urrutia Gerard, Sánchez-Rovira Pedro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews.
RESULTS: Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews.
RESULTS: Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.