↓ Skip to main content

The use of isotope injections in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: are the 1- and 2-day protocols equally effective?

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
The use of isotope injections in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: are the 1- and 2-day protocols equally effective?
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1314-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nazera Dodia, Deena El-Sharief, Cliona C. Kirwan

Abstract

Sentinel lymph nodes are mapped using (99m)Technetium, injected on day of surgery (1-day protocol) or day before (2-day protocol). This retrospective cohort study compares efficacy between the two protocols. Histopathology for all unilateral sentinel lymph node biopsies (March 2012-March 2013) in a single centre were reviewed. Number of sentinel lymph nodes, non-sentinel lymph nodes and pathology was compared. 2/270 (0.7 %) in 1-day protocol and 8/192 (4 %) in 2-day protocol had no sentinel lymph nodes removed (p = 0.02). The median (range) number of sentinel lymph nodes removed per patient was 2 (0-7) and 1 (0-11) in the 1- and 2-day protocols respectively (p = 0.08). There was a trend for removing more non-sentinel lymph nodes in 2-day protocol [1-day: 52/270 (19 %); 2-day: 50/192 (26 %), p = 0.07]. Using 2-day, sentinel lymph node identification failure rate is higher, although within acceptable rates. The 1 and 2 day protocols are both effective, therefore choice of protocol should be driven by patient convenience and hospital efficiency. However, this study raises the possibility that 1-day may be preferable when higher sentinel lymph node count is beneficial, for example following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Master 3 23%
Lecturer 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,427,608
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,260
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,752
of 268,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#82
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.