The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer — A Multicenter Validation Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Pilot studies indicate that probe-guided resection of radioactive sentinel nodes (the first nodes that receive drainage from tumors) can identify regional metastases in patients with breast cancer. To confirm this finding, we conducted a multicenter study of the method as used by 11 surgeons in a variety of practice settings. METHODS: We enrolled 443 patients with breast cancer. The technique involved the injection of 4 ml of technetium-99m sulfur colloid (1 mCi [37 MBq]) into the breast around the tumor or biopsy cavity. "Hot spots" representing underlying sentinel nodes were identified with a gamma probe. Sentinel nodes subjacent to hot spots were removed. All patients underwent a complete axillary lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The overall rate of identification of hot spots was 93 percent (in 413 of 443 patients). The pathological status of the sentinel nodes was compared with that of the remaining axillary nodes. The accuracy of the sentinel nodes with respect to the positive or negative status of the axillary nodes was 97 percent (392 of 405); the specificity of the method was 100 percent, the positive predictive value was 100 percent, the negative predictive value was 96 percent (291 of 304), and the sensitivity was 89 percent (101 of 114). The sentinel nodes were outside the axilla in 8 percent of cases and outside of level 1 nodes in 11 percent of cases. Three percent of positive sentinel nodes were in nonaxillary locations. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy of sentinel nodes can predict the presence or absence of axillary-node metastases in patients with breast cancer. However, the procedure can be technically challenging, and the success rate varies according to the surgeon and the characteristics of the patient.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Deep learning radiomics can predict axillary lymph node status in early-stage breast cancer
Zheng, X., Yao, Z., Huang, Y., Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Mao, R., Li, F., Xiao, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15027-z · Cited by 607
Wilke, L. G., McCall, L. M., Posther, K. E., Whitworth, P. W., Reintgen, D. S., Leitch, A. M., Gabram, S. G. A., Lucci, A., Cox, C. E., Hunt, K. K., et al. (2006) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/aso.2006.05.013 · Cited by 580
Self-citationSchrenk, P., Rieger, R., Shamiyeh, A., & Wayand, W. (2000) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000201)88:3<608::aid-cncr17>3.0.co;2-k · Cited by 533
Standardizing the power of the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test in large data sets
Paul, P., Pennell, M. L., & Lemeshow, S. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5525 · Cited by 432
Breast cancer-related lymphedema: risk factors, precautionary measures, and treatments
Gillespie, T. C., Sayegh, H. E., Brunelle, C. L., Daniell, K. M., & Taghian, A. G. (2018) · Gland Surgery · doi:10.21037/gs.2017.11.04 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Krag, D., Weaver, D., Ashikaga, T., Moffat, F., Klimberg, V. S., Shriver, C., Feldman, S., Kusminsky, R., Gadd, M., Kuhn, J., Harlow, S., Beitsch, P., Whitworth, P., Foster, R., & Dowlatshahi, K.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 339
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 941-946
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2335018892
- Cited by
- 2,018
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 56.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer — A Multicenter Validation Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199810013391401
- The paper
- Krag, D., Weaver, D., Ashikaga, T., Moffat, F., Klimberg, V. S., Shriver, C., Feldman, S., Kusminsky, R., Gadd, M., Kuhn, J., Harlow, S., Beitsch, P., Whitworth, P., Foster, R., & Dowlatshahi, K. (1998). The Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer — A Multicenter Validation Study. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199810013391401
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.