↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Imprint cytology versus frozen section analysis for intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph node in breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Breast cancer targets and therapy, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Imprint cytology versus frozen section analysis for intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph node in breast cancer
Published in
Breast cancer targets and therapy, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/bctt.s130987
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thalia Petropoulou, Antonia Kapoula, Aikaterini Mastoraki, Aikaterini Politi, Eleni Spanidou-Karvouni, Ioannis Psychogios, Ioannis Vassiliou, Nikolaos Arkadopoulos

Abstract

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is the gold standard for surgical staging of the axilla in breast cancer (BC). Frozen section (FS) remains the most popular means of intraoperative SLN diagnosis. Imprint cytology (IC) has also been suggested as a less expensive and equally accurate alternative to FS. The aim of our study was to perform a direct comparison between IC and FS on the same SLNs of BC cases operated in a single center by the same surgical team. Into this prospective study we enrolled 60 consecutive patients with histologically proven T1-T3 BC and clinically negative axilla. Sentinel nodes were detected using a standard protocol. The SLN(s) was always assessed by IC as well as FS analysis and immunohistochemistry. Nevertheless, all intraoperative decisions were based on FS analysis. During the study period 60 patients with invasive BC were registered, with 80 SLNs harvested. Mean number of SLN(s) identified for each patient was 1.33. The sensitivity and specificity were 90% and 100%, respectively, for IC, and 80% and 100% for FS. Relevant positive/negative predictive values were 100%/98% for IC and 100%/96.15%, respectively, for FS. Overall accuracy was 98% for IC and 97% for FS. Therefore, statistically significant difference between the two methods in the detection of positive nodes was not elucidated (p=1.000). IC appeared to be marginally more sensitive than FS in detecting SLN metastatic activity. Overall accuracy was 98.75%. With regard to the primary lesion characteristics, we conclude that initial lesion size and lymphovascular invasion play a pivotal role in metastatic involvement of the SLN with the dimensions of metastasis bearing no correlation with tumor size. Therefore, IC appears to be a sensitive and accurate method for the intraoperative assessment of SLN in BC patients, but further studies are required to confirm this interesting data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 21%
Lecturer 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 May 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#170
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,441
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.