Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 278
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 18

Assessment of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in two subgroups: Initially node negative and node positive converted to node negative – A systemic review and meta-analysis


1 Non-Communicable Disease Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran
2 Division of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alireza Shirzadi
Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_127_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with breast cancer, but the reliability of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) following chemotherapy is in doubt. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate studies that examine the results of SLNB after NAC to assess identification rate (IR) and false-negative rate (FNR). Materials and Methods: Systemic searches were performed in the PubMed, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from January 1, 2000, to November 30, 2016, for studies of SLNB after NAC for breast cancer and followed by axillary lymph node (LN) dissection in two subgroups: initially node negative and node positive converted to node negative. Two reviewers independently review quality of included studies. A random-effects model was used to pool IR and FNR with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity among studies was assessed by I2 and Q-test. Results: A total of 23 studies with 1521 patients in the initially node-negative subgroup and 13 studies with 1088 patients in the node-positive converted to node-negative subgroup, were included in this meta-analysis with IR and FNR of 94% (95% CI: 92–96) and 7% (95% CI: 5–9) in the initially node-negative subgroup and 89% (95% CI: 85–94) and 13% (95% CI: 7–18) in the node-positive converted to node-negative subgroup, respectively. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed acceptable IR and FNR in initially node-negative group and it seems feasible in these patients, but these parameters did not reach to predefined value in node-positive converted to node-negative group, and thus, it is not recommended in these patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed148    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal