Evidence Hub

Axillary Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy by Breast Cancer Subtype in Patients With Initially Clinically Node-Positive Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

S. Samiei, J. Simons, S. Engelen, R. Beets-Tan, J. Classe, M. Smidt

JAMA Surgery, 2021

57 participants · 197 citations

Abstract

Importance

An overview of rates of axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) for all breast cancer subtypes, both for patients with and without pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease, is lacking.

Objective

To provide pooled data of all studies in the neoadjuvant setting on axillary pCR rates for different breast cancer subtypes in patients with initially clinically node-positive disease.

Data Sources

The electronic databases Embase and PubMed were used to conduct a systematic literature search on July 16, 2020. The references of the included studies were manually checked to identify other eligible studies.

Study Selection

Studies in the neoadjuvant therapy setting were identified regarding axillary pCR for different breast cancer subtypes in patients with initially clinically node-positive disease (ie, defined as node-positive before the initiation of neoadjuvant systemic therapy).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies according to the inclusion criteria and extracted all data. All discrepant results were resolved during a consensus meeting. To identify the different subtypes, the subtype definitions as reported by the included articles were used. The random-effects model was used to calculate the overall pooled estimate of axillary pCR for each breast cancer subtype.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome of this study was the rate of axillary pCR and residual axillary lymph node disease after neoadjuvant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 57 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free