MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: Relevance of sentinel node micrometastases, isolated tumor cells, and value of immunohistochemistry.

2013· article· en· W1760304583 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-François Boileau, Brigitte Poirier, Mark Basik, Claire Holloway, Louis Gaboury, Lucas Sidéris, Sarkis Meterissian, Angel Arnaout, Muriel Brackstone, David R. McCready, Stephen E. Karp, Frances C. Wright, Rami Younan, Louise Provencher, E. Patocskai, Atilla Ömeroğlu, André Robidoux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreHôpital du Saint-SacrementOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and CancerMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSentinel nodeImmunohistochemistryBreast cancerBiopsyAxillary DissectionNeoadjuvant therapyOncologyMetastasisCancerSentinel lymph nodeInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

52 Background: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is used in breast cancer patients that present with clinically negative nodes. In this setting, most guidelines do not support the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and recommend against completion node dissection (CND) when only isolated tumor cells (pN0(i+)) or micrometasases (pN1mi) are identified. When SNB is used after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), the relevance of ypN0(i+) and ypN1mi sentinel nodes (SNs) and the value of IHC are not well established. The goals of this study are to determine if CND should be recommended in the presence of ypN0(i+) or ypN1mi SNs and if IHC should be used to evaluate SNs after NAT. Methods: From March 2009 to December 2012, 152 women with biopsy proven node positive breast cancer were accrued to the multicentric prospective SN FNAC trial. After NAT, SNB was followed by a CND in all participants. SNs were cut in serial slices no thicker than 2 mm. Hematoxylin and eosin stains (H and E) were done on all slices, and if negative, IHC was used. The size of the largest SN metastasis and the primary method of identification (H and E or IHC) were recorded. ypN0(i+), ypN1mi and ypN1 SNs were considered as positive. Pathology was centrally reviewed. Results: 145 women were eligible for the trial. Axillary pathologic complete response rate = 34% (49/145). SNB success rate = 88% (127/145). False negative rate = 8.4% (7/83). If ypN0(i+) SNs are classified as node negative, the false negative rate is increased to 13.3% (11/83). For patients with ypN0(i+) (n=7), ypN1mi (n=8) and ypN1 (n=61) SNs, the rates of non-SN involvement are 57%, 38% and 56% respectively (p=NS). 40% (27/68) of positive SNBs are primarily detected by IHC. This is increased to 64% (9/14) for the identification of SN metastases ≤ 2mm. Conclusions: After NAT, particularly when presenting with biopsy proven node positive breast cancer, patients with ypN0(i+) and ypN1mi SNs have a significant rate of non-SN involvement. In the absence of evidence to show that a CND can be safely avoided, efforts should be made to identify even minimal amounts of disease when SNBs are done following NAT. IHC is useful to increase the detection of small SN metastases in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00909441.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→