| Title |
Risk of Regional Recurrence After Negative Repeat Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-018-6384-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ingrid G. M. Poodt, Guusje Vugts, Adriana J. G. Maaskant-Braat, Robert-Jan Schipper, Adri C. Voogd, Grard A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study group |
| Abstract |
Repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy (rSLNB) has increasingly been used in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The safety in terms of regional disease control after this procedure remains unclear. This study evaluates occurrence of regional recurrence as first event in patients with IBTR and negative rSLNB, treated without additional lymph node dissection. Data were obtained from the Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study. In 201 patients, tumor-negative rSLNB was obtained without performing additional lymph node dissections. With median follow-up of 4.7 (range 0.9-12.7) years, regional recurrence occurred after median time of 3.0 (range 0.4-6.7) years in 4.5% (N = 9) of patients as first event after IBTR and rSLNB. In four of these nine patients, the site of recurrence was in concordance with the anatomical location of rSLNB. Two of the nine recurrences were reported in the ipsilateral axilla, resulting in an ipsilateral axillary regional recurrence rate of 1.0%. In the other seven patients, regional recurrence occurred in aberrant basins. Univariable analysis showed that triple-negative IBTR and lower amount of radioactive-labeled tracer (99mtechnetium) used during rSLNB were associated with developing regional recurrence as first event after negative rSLNB (P < 0.05). The risk of developing regional recurrence after negative rSLNB is low. The low relapse rate supports the safety of rSLNB as primary nodal staging tool in IBTR. The time has come for clinical guidelines to adopt rSLNB as axillary staging tool in patients with IBTR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 30% |
| Italy | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,720,180
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#1,544
of 6,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,187
of 331,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#34
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.