ArticleRadiology and oncology2013
The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigation of Added Value of Imaging Performed in a Prone Position to StandardMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- Potential Clinical Applications ofNuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Review
- Thyroid lesions incidentally detected by (18)F-FDG PET-CT - a two centre retrospective study.Radiology and oncology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of the study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of an integrated Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18 FDG) PET/CT-mammography (mammo-PET/CT) with conventional torso PET/CT (supine-PET/CT) and MR-mammography for initial assessment of breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsForty women (52.0 ± 12.0 years) with breast cancer who underwent supine-PET/CT, mammo-PET/CT, and MR-mammography from April 2009 to August 2009 were enrolled in the study. We compared the size of the tumour, tumour to chest wall distance, tumour to skin distance, volume of axillary fossa, and number of meta-static axillary lymph nodes between supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT. Next, we assessed the difference of focality of primary breast tumour and tumour size in mammo-PET/CT and MR-mammography. Histopathologic findings served as the standard of reference.
resultsIn the comparison between supine-PET/CT and mammo-PET/CT, significant differences were found in the tumour size (supine-PET/CT: 1.3 ± 0.6 cm, mammo-PET/CT: 1.5 ± 0.6 cm, p < 0.001), tumour to thoracic wall distance (1.8 ± 0.9 cm, 2.2 ± 2.1 cm, p < 0.001), and tumour to skin distance (1.5 ± 0.8 cm, 2.1 ± 1.4 cm, p < 0.001). The volume of axillary fossa was significantly wider in mammo-PET/CT than supine-PET/CT (21.7 ± 8.7 cm(3) vs. 23.4 ± 10.4 cm(3), p = 0.03). Mammo-PET/CT provided more correct definition of the T-stage of the primary tumour than did supine-PET/CT (72.5% vs. 67.5%). No significant difference was found in the number of metastatic axillary lymph nodes. Compared with MR-mammography, mammo-PET/CT provided more correct classification of the focality of lesion than did MR-mammography (95% vs. 90%). In the T-stage, 72.5% of cases with mammo-PET/CT and 70% of cases with MR-mammography showed correspondence with pathologic results.
conclusionsMammo-PET/CT provided more correct definition of the T-stage and evaluation of axillary fossa may also be delineated more clearly than with supine-PET/CT. The initial assessment of mammo-PET/CT would be more useful than MR-mammography because the mammo-PET/CT indicates similar accuracy with MR-mammography for decision of T-stage of primary breast tumour and more correct than MR-mammography for defining focality of lesion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.