Accuracy of @entity1600 in large and XXXX /multicentric @entity0 --a systematic review.

@entity0 @entity5 @entity5278 @entity1600 @entity4298
BACKGROUND: While @entity1600 ( @entity1600 ) is established in the management of small unifocal @entity0 its role in management of @entity5278 ( @entity5278 ), multicentric (MC) and @entity5 is still evolving. METHODS: Medline was searched; studies meeting pre-determined criteria were included. Data were extracted and entered into evidence tables. RESULTS: Twenty six studies met inclusion criteria and reported data on accuracy; no randomized trials were identified. For @entity5 (n = 314 cases), success rate for identification of an @entity4298 was 86-94%, @entity4298 positivity rate 42-59%, false negative rate (FNR) 0-33% and overall accuracy 78-100%. For MC (n = 294 cases): success rate 92-100%, @entity4298 positivity rate 25-61%, FNR 4-8% and accuracy 96-100%. For 'multiple @entity0 ' (studies combining @entity5278 /MC cases; n = 996 cases): success rate 92-100%, @entity4298 positivity rate 12-63%, FNR 0-25%, and accuracy 82-100%. For @entity5 (n = 1912 cases): success rate 86-100%, @entity4298 positivity rate 49-77%, FNR 3-18% and accuracy 85-98%. For MC/ @entity5278 and larger @entity5 overall non- @entity4298 positivity rates were up to 82%; axillary recurrence rates were low but seldom reported. CONCLUSION: There are no randomized trials evaluating the safety of @entity1600 in @entity0 . Based on limited evidence, success rate and FNR appear to be similar to those for small unifocal @entity5 , however node positivity rates are higher and rates of non- @entity4298 positivity are very high. Awareness of these issues is essential when recommending @entity1600 based axillary management for these higher-risk @entity5 .
