ArticleJournal of breast cancer2015
Incidental Breast Lesions Identified by (18)F-FDG PET/CT: Which Clinical Variables Differentiate between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions?
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid [Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Prevalence and Malignancy Risk of Breast Incidental Uptake Detected by PET/CT with Different Radiopharmaceuticals: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Definitions of Incidental [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Unexpected focal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in main organs; pass through or pass by?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Performance of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Acute Findings on FDG PET/CT: Key Imaging Features and How to Differentiate Them from Malignancy.Current radiology reports · 2020Review
- A preliminary study to propose a diagnostic algorithm for PET/CT-detected incidental breast lesions: application of BI-RADS lexicon for US in combination with SUVmax.European radiology · 2019Article
- Prevalence of focal incidental breast uptake on FDG-PET/CT and risk of malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2019Review
- Evidence-based management of incidental focal uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose on PET-CT.The British journal of radiology · 2018Review
- Spectrum of the Breast Lesions With Increased 18F-FDG Uptake on PET/CT.Clinical nuclear medicine · 2016Article
- Clinical-Diagnostic Relevance of Breast "Incidentaloma" Detected During 18F-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: Correlation with Radiological Imaging and Histopathology.Indian journal of nuclear medicine : IJNM : the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.