↓ Skip to main content

Improved false negative rate of axillary status using sentinel lymph node biopsy and ultrasound-suspicious lymph node sampling in patients with early breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improved false negative rate of axillary status using sentinel lymph node biopsy and ultrasound-suspicious lymph node sampling in patients with early breast cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1331-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yulong Wang, Haiyan Dong, Hongyan Wu, Li Zhang, Kai Yuan, Hongqiang Chen, Mingwen Jiao, Rongzhan Fu

Abstract

The false negative rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is 5-10%, and results in improper patient management. The study was to assess the value of ultrasound-suspicious axillary lymph node biopsy (USALNB) in patients with early breast cancer, and to compare SLNB combined with USALNB (SLNB + USALNB) with SLNB alone. From January 2010 to July 2013, 216 patients with early breast cancer were enrolled consecutively at the Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong University. All patients underwent wire localization of the suspicious node by color Doppler ultrasonography, followed by SLNB 2-3 hours later, suspicious node lymphadenectomy, and level ≥ II axillary dissection (as the gold standard). The predictive values of node status between SLNB + USALNB and SLNB alone were compared. The success rate of SLNB was 99.1% (214/216). After axillary dissection, 71 patients were confirmed with axillary lymph node metastases by pathological examinations. Eight false negatives were observed using SLNB alone, resulting in sensitivity of 88.7%, specificity of 100%, false negative rate of 11.3%, and false positive rate of 0% in predicting the axillary node status. SLNB + USALNB resulted in sensitivity of 97.2%, specificity of 100%, false negative rate of 2.8%, and false positive rate of 0%. The false negative rate of SLNB + USALNB was significantly different from that of SLNB alone (P = 0.031). SLNB + USALNB seems to be a low-risk procedure that might be useful in reducing the false negative rate of SLNB, improving the accuracy of axillary nodes evaluation in early breast cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 23%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,810,408
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,667
of 8,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,532
of 263,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#110
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,297 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 263,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.