4.5 Review

Different strategies in marking axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant medical treatment: a systematic review

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 186, 期 3, 页码 607-615

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06118-6

关键词

Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant therapy; Nodal marking; Targeted axillary dissection

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marking and selectively removing cytology-proven metastatic axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant treatment is feasible. Various methods of nodal marking and localization techniques can achieve an acceptably high nodal retrieval rate.
Background Marking of cytology-proven metastatic axillary lymph node in breast cancer patients before neoadjuvant treatment and its subsequent surgical retrieval have been shown to reduce the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy. A systematic review was performed to evaluate different strategies in nodal marking and localization. Methods PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, and the Cochrane library literature databases were searched systematically to address the identification rate and retrieval rate of marked axillary lymph nodes. Studies were eligible if they performed nodal marking before neoadjuvant treatment, followed by selective extirpation of these marked axillary lymph nodes in definitive surgery Results Fifteen studies with a total of 703 patients were included. Index axillary lymph nodes were marked by clips or tattooed prior to the commencement of neoadjuvant treatment. In our pooled analysis, eighty-eight percent of the clipped nodes and ninety-seven percent of the tattooed nodes were successfully retrieved. Among these patients, seventy-seven percent of these marked axillary lymph nodes were also sentinel lymph nodes. Conclusion Marking and selectively removing cytology-proven metastatic axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant treatment is feasible. An acceptably high nodal retrieval rate could be achieved using various methods of nodal marking and localization techniques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据