Table 2a.
Characteristics of the individual studies in initially node-negative subgroup
| Author | Year | Country | Center | Design | Sample size | Tracer | Pathology | Mean SLN | Percentage IR | Percentage FNR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nason et al.[11] | 2000 | USA | Single | Prospective | 9 | D, I, LS | H & E, IHC | 88.8 | 22.2 | |
| Tafra et al.[12] | 2001 | USA | Multiple | Prospective | 29 | D, I | H & E, IHC | 2.5 | 93 | 0 |
| Miller et al.[13] | 2002 | USA | Single | Retrospective | 35 | D, I | H & E, IHC | 2.1 | 85.7 | 11.4 |
| Vigario et al.[14] | 2003 | Brazil | Single | Prospective | 37 | I, LS | H & E, IHC | 1.7 | 97 | 19.4 |
| Piato et al.[15] | 2003 | Brazil | Single | Retrospective | 42 | I, LS | H & E | 97.5 | 16.7 | |
| Shimazu et al.[3] | 2004 | Japan | Single | Retrospective | 25 | D, I, LS | H & E, IHC | 2.1 | 96 | 7.1 |
| Lang et al.[16] | 2004 | USA | Single | Retrospective | 30 | D, I, LS | H & E | - | 96.7 | 0 |
| Tanaka et al.[17] | 2005 | Japan | Single | Retrospective | 17 | D | H & E | 1.9 | 100 | 0 |
| Jones et al.[18] | 2005 | USA | Single | Retrospective | 17 | - | H & E, IHC | - | 94.1 | 10 |
| Mamounas et al.[19] | 2005 | USA | Multiple | Prospective | 326 | D, I | H & E, IHC | 84.4 | 12.4 | |
| Yu et al.[20] | 2007 | Taiwan | Single | Retrospective | 127 | D | H & E, IHC | - | 91.3 | 9.6 |
| Kinoshita[21] | 2007 | Japan | Single | Prospective | 54 | D, I, LS | H & E | - | 96.9 | 14.3 |
| Gimbergues et al.[22] | 2008 | France | Single | Prospective | 82 | I, LS | H & E, IHC | 1.7 | 93.9 | 0 |
| Papa et al.[23] | 2008 | Israel | Single | Prospective | 31 | D, I | H & E | - | 87 | 15.8 |
| Classe et al.[24] | 2009 | France | Multiple | Prospective | 130 | D, I | H & E, IHC | 1.9 | 94.6 | 9.4 |
| Hunt et al.[25] | 2009 | USA | Single | Retrospective | 84 | D, I | H & E, IHC | 2.7 | 97.4 | 5.9 |
| Cheung et al.[26] | 2009 | China | Single | Prospective | 78 | D, I | H & E, IHC | - | 88.3 | 10.3 |
| Pecha et al.[27] | 2011 | Czech | Multiple | Retrospective | 172 | D, I, LS | H & E, IHC | 1.3 | 89.5 | 16.3 |
| Takahashi et al.[28] | 2012 | Japan | Single | Prospective | 41 | D, I, LS | H & E, IHC | 3 | 87.8 | 5.6 |
| Rebollo-Aguirre et al.[29] | 2012 | Spain | Single | Prospective | 51 | I, LS | H & E, IHC, OSNA | 1.7 | 98 | 9.5 |
| Shigekawa et al.[30] | 2012 | Japan | Single | Retrospective | 21 | D, I, LS | H & E, IHC | - | 81 | 0 |
| Piñero-Madrona et al.[31] | 2015 | Spain | Multiple | Prospective | 49 | D, I | - | - | 90 | 18 |
| Kida et al.[32] | 2015 | Japan | Single | Prospective | 34 | D | H & E | 2.5 | 97.1 | 0 |
D=Dye; I=Radioisotope; LS=Lymphoscintigraphy; H & E=Hematoxylin-eosin; IHC=Immunohistochemistry; OSNA=One-step nucleic acid amplification; IR=Identification rate; FNR=False-negative rate; SLN=Sentinel lymph node