MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116980363 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(25)00598-4

Oncological outcomes with and without axillary lymph node dissection in patients with residual micrometastases after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OPBC-07/microNAC): an international, retrospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W7116980363 on OpenAlexaff
Giacomo Montagna, Michael Alvarado, Sara Myers, Mary M Mrdutt, Susie X. Sun, Varadan Sevilimedu, Andrea V. Barrio, Astrid Botty van den Bruele, Judy C. Boughey, Marissa K. Srour, Angelena Crown, Susan B. Kesmodel, TA King, H.M. Kuerer, Elmore C. Leisha, Tracy-Ann Moo, Anna Weiss, Austin D. Williams, Priyanka Parmar, Brian Diskin, Callie Hlavin, Emilia J. Diego, Natália Polidorio, Khaled Abdelwahab, M. Banys-Paluchowski, C. Kurzeder, Martin Heidinger, Maite Goldschmidt, Alexandra Schulz, Jörg Heil, Güldeniz Karadeniz Çakmak, Nina Pislar, Margit Riis, Ipshita Prakash, Valentina Ovalle, M Umit Ugurlu, Gianluca Franceschini, Emelyanov Alexander Sergeevich, Javier Morales, Han-Byoel Lee, Viviana Galimberti, Sung Gwe Ahn, J. Ryu, Mahmut Müslümanoğlu, Neslihan Cabıoğlu, Tae-Kyung Yoo, Marie‐Jeanne Vrancken Peeters, Massimo Ferrucci, Monica Morrow, William P. Weber, Mariacarla Adreozzi, Daniel Meirelles Barbalho, Hakan Balbaloĝlu, John Benson, Gilles Berclaz, Eelco de Bree, Jordana de Faria Bessa, Eduard-Alexandru Bonci, Jana de Boniface, Susanne Bucher, Jinyoung Byeon, Francisco Pimentel Cavalcante, Daniela Cocco, Fabio CORSI, Marcelo Chávez Díaz, Alba Di Leone, Nina Ditsch, Ruth Exner, Meghan R. Flanagan, Maria Luisa Gasparri, Mary L. Gemignani, Uwe Güth, Mehmet Ali Gulcelik, Wonshik Han, Ruth Helfgott, Justyna Jelinska, Michael Knauer, Natalia Krawczyk, Petr Krivorotko, Cornelia Leo, Alberto Marchet, Jelena Maksimenko, Tehillah S. Menes, Francesco Milardi, Hyeong-Gon Moon, Olívio Feitosa Costa Neto, Valerijus Ostapenko, Daniele Passeri, Jessica Pastoriza, Régis Paulinelli, Andraž Perhavec, Ana Car Peterko, André Pfob, Melissa L Pilewskie, David Pinto, Thiago Pinto, Fiorita Poulakaki, Mattea Reinisch, Nicola Rocco, Isabel T. Rubio, Omema Saleem, José Ignacio Sánchez-Méndez, Rok Satler, Alejandro Martín Sánchez, Lorenzo Scardina, Freya Schnabel, Christopher J. Schwartz, Jue Li Seah, Leonardo Ribeiro Soares, Ivan Turčan, Cicero Urban, Maria Vernet-Tomas, Denise Vorburger, Sanjay Warrier, Kerstin Wimmer, Gonzalo Ziegler‐Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyChemotherapyDissection (medical)Breast cancerCancerLymph nodeAxillary DissectionCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the paucity of outcome data, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is increasingly being omitted in patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in those with low-volume residual disease. We investigated oncological outcomes in patients with breast cancer and residual micrometastases in the sentinel lymph nodes treated with or without ALND. METHODS: OPBC-07/microNAC was a retrospective cohort study, using data obtained from the institutional databases of 84 cancer centres in 30 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with clinical T1-4, N0-3 breast cancer at diagnosis treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery between Jan 1, 2013, and May 31, 2023, who were found to have residual micrometastases (metastasis measuring >0·2 mm or >200 cells, not exceeding 2·0 mm in size) on frozen section or on final paraffin sections as determined by sentinel lymph node biopsy, targeted axillary dissection (sentinel lymph node biopsy with single or dual-tracer mapping plus image-guided localisation of the initially biopsy-proven and clipped node), or the marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds (MARI) procedure were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the 5-year rate of any axillary recurrence (isolated or combined with local or distant recurrence) stratified by type of axillary surgery. Given the median follow-up, here we report 3-year rates and exploratory 5-year estimates. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06529302. FINDINGS: 1585 female patients with ypN1mi disease were analysed, of whom 804 (50·7%) underwent ALND and 781 (49·3%) did not. Of 1585 women, 238 (15·0%) self-identified as Asian, 65 (4·1%) as Black, 200 (12·6%) as Hispanic, 968 (61·1%) as White, and 114 (7·2%) as unknown race and ethnicity. 925 (58·4%) of 1585 women had cT2 tumours, 1054 (66·5%) were node positive, and 1267 (79·9%) received nodal radiotherapy. The median follow-up was 3·1 years (IQR 1·8-5·2). The 3-year rate of any axillary recurrence (isolated or combined with local or distant recurrence) for the entire cohort was 2·0% (95% CI 1·3-2·9), with no statistical difference identified by extent of axillary surgery. However, patients with triple-negative disease who did not receive ALND had significantly higher rates of any axillary recurrence than women treated with ALND (8·7% [95% CI 4·4-15·0] vs 2·4% [95% CI 0·7-6·5], p=0·018). On multivariable analysis, triple-negative breast cancer (hazard ratio 3·83 [95% CI 1·72-8·52]) and omission of nodal radiotherapy (2·62 [1·19-5·73]) but not omission of ALND (0·86 [0·37-2·00]) were independently associated with an increased risk of any axillary recurrence. INTERPRETATION: Overall, these results do not support ALND for all patients with ypN1mi on sentinel lymph node biopsy treated with nodal radiotherapy; however, tumour biology should be taken into account when considering ALND omission. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207