Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25834614›Full record

ArticleJournal of breast cancer2015

Incidental Breast Lesions Identified by (18)F-FDG PET/CT: Which Clinical Variables Differentiate between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions?

Kyung Min Shin, Hye Jung Kim, Su Jin Jung, Hyo Soon Lim, Sang Woo Lee, Seung Hyun Cho, Yun-Jin Jang, Hui Joong Lee, Gab Chul Kim, Jin Hyang Jung and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hybrid [Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Definitions of Incidental [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Diagnostic Performance of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Kyung Min ShinDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Hye Jung KimDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Su Jin JungDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea.
Hyo Soon LimDepartment of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea.
Sang Woo LeeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Seung Hyun ChoDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Yun-Jin JangDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
Hui Joong LeeDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
Gab Chul KimDepartment of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Jin Hyang JungDepartments of Surgery, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Ji Young ParkDepartments of Pathology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of our study was to evaluate the risk of malignancy and to determine which clinical variables differentiate between benign and malignant focal breast lesions found incidentally on (18)F-flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG PET/CT).

methodsFrom March 2005 to October 2011, 21,224 women with no history of breast cancer underwent FDG PET/CT at three university-affiliated hospitals. We retrospectively identified 214 patients with incidental focal hypermetabolic breast lesions and grouped them into benign and malignant lesion groups. Of the 214 patients, 82 patients with 91 lesions were included in this study. All lesions were confirmed histologically or were assessed by follow-up imaging for greater than 2 years. The patient age, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), lesion size on ultrasonography (US), and Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category on US in conjunction with mammography were compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with malignancy.

resultsThe risk of malignancy was 29.7% (27/91) in breast incidentalomas detected by FDG PET/CT. The univariate analysis showed that the patient age, SUVmax, tumor size, and BI-RADS category differed significantly between the malignant and benign groups. The multivariate analysis showed that the BI-RADS category was the only significant factor differentiating benign from malignant lesions (p=0.002).

conclusionBIRADS category based on US in conjunction with mammography was the only useful tool to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions in breast incidentalomas on FDG PET/CT.

Indexed as

Breast neoplasmsMammographyPositron-emission tomographyUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID25834614
PMCPMC4381126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.