↓ Skip to main content

A Population-Based Study of the Effects of a Regional Guideline for Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection on Axillary Surgery in Patients with Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
A Population-Based Study of the Effects of a Regional Guideline for Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection on Axillary Surgery in Patients with Breast Cancer
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, June 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5310-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam W. Tsao, Sylvie D. Cornacchi, Nicole Hodgson, Marko Simunovic, Lehana Thabane, Ji Cheng, Mary Ann O’Brien, Barbara Strang, Som D. Mukherjee, Peter J. Lovrics

Abstract

Evidence from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial suggests completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (+SLNB) does not improve outcomes in select patients, leading to practice variation. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists developed a regional guideline for cALND which was disseminated in August 2012. We assessed the impact of Z0011 and the regional guideline on cALND rates. Consecutive invasive breast cancer cases undergoing SLNB were reviewed at 12 hospitals. Patient, tumor, and process measures were collected for three time periods: TP1, before publication of Z0011 (May 2009-August 2010); TP2, after publication of Z0011 (March 2011-June 2012); and TP3, after guideline dissemination (January 2013-April 2014). Cases were categorized by whether they met the guideline criteria for cALND (i.e. ≤50 years, mastectomy, T3 tumor, three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes [SLNs]) or not (e.g. age > 50 years, breast-conserving surgery, T1/T2 tumor, and one to two positive SLNs). The SLNB rate increased from 56 % (n = 620), to 70 % (n = 774), to 78 % (n = 844) in TP1, TP2, and TP3, respectively. Among cases not recommended for cALND using the guideline criteria, cALND rates decreased significantly over time (TP1, 71 %; TP2, 43 %; TP3, 17 %) [p < 0.001]. The cALND rate also decreased over time among cases recommended to have cALND using the guideline criteria (TP1, 92 %; TP2, 69 %; TP3, 58 %) [p < 0.001]. Based on multivariable analysis, age and nodal factors appeared to be significant factors for cALND decision making. Publication of ACOSOG Z0011 and regional guideline dissemination were associated with a marked decrease in cALND after +SLNB, even among several cases in which the guideline recommended cALND.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,999
of 6,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,641
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#132
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.