ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2013
Dynamic (18) F-FDG PET for Assessment of Tumor Physiology in Two Breast Carcinoma Xenografts.
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- GlucoCEST MRI for the Evaluation Response to Chemotherapeutic and Metabolic Treatments in a Murine Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Comparison with[Molecular imaging and biology · 2022Article
- Influx rate ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Roles of GLUT-1 and HK-II expression in the biological behavior of head and neck cancer.Oncotarget · 2019Article
- Dynamic 2-Deoxy-2-[Molecular imaging and biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare dynamic 2-deoxy-2-[(18) F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography ((18) F-FDG PET) parameters in two selected human breast cancer xenografts and to evaluate associations with immunohistochemistry and histology. PROCEDURES: Dynamic (18) F-FDG PET of luminal-like MAS98.06 and basal-like MAS98.12 xenografts was performed, and the compartmental transfer rates (k 1 ,k 2 ,k 3 ), blood volume fraction (v B ) and metabolic rate of (18) F-FDG(MR FDG ) were estimated from pharmacokinetic model analysis. After sacrifice, analyses of hypoxia (pimonidazole), proliferation (Ki-67), vascularization (CD31), glucose transport receptor (GLUT1) and necrosis (HE) was performed. The level of hexokinase 2 (HK2) was estimated from Western blot analysis.
resultsThe (18) F-FDG uptake curves for the two xenografts were significantly different (p < 0.05). k 1 and v B were higher for MAS98.12 (p < 0.01), while k 3 was higher for MAS98.06 (p < 0.01). MAS98.12 had a higher fraction of stromal tissue and higher microvessel density (MVD), and it was less necrotic and hypoxic than MAS98.06. MAS98.12 had stronger positive GLUT1 staining and lower Ki-67 than MAS98.06. In both models significant correlations were found between k 1 and the GLUT1 score, between k 3 and the level of HK2, and between v B and MVD.
conclusionsSignificant differences in dynamic (18) F-FDG parameters between the two human breast cancer xenografts were found. The differences could be explained by underlying histological and physiological characteristics.
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.