ArticleBMC cancer2016
US-localized diffuse optical tomography in breast cancer: comparison with pharmacokinetic parameters of DCE-MRI and with pathologic biomarkers.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- SAFE: A Novel Microwave Imaging System Design for Breast Cancer Screening and Early Detection-Clinical Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A review of optical breast imaging: Multi-modality systems for breast cancer diagnosis.European journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Diffuse optical tomography changes correlate with residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2017Article
- Optical Breast Imaging: A Review of Physical Principles, Technologies, and Clinical Applications.Journal of breast imagingArticle
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 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo correlate parameters of Ultrasonography-guided Diffuse optical tomography (US-DOT) with pharmacokinetic features of Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI and pathologic markers of breast cancer.
methodsOur institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Thirty seven breast cancer patients received US-DOT and DCE-MRI with less than two weeks in between imaging sessions. The maximal total hemoglobin concentration (THC) measured by US-DOT was correlated with DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters, which included K(trans), k ep and signal enhancement ratio (SER). These imaging parameters were also correlated with the pathologic biomarkers of breast cancer.
resultsThe parameters THC and SER showed marginal positive correlation (r = 0.303, p = 0.058). Tumors with high histological grade, negative ER, and higher Ki-67 expression ≥ 20% showed statistically higher THC values compared to their counterparts (p = 0.019, 0.041, and 0.023 respectively). Triple-negative (TN) breast cancers showed statistically higher K(trans) values than non-TN cancers (p = 0.048).
conclusionTHC obtained from US-DOT and K(trans) obtained from DCE-MRI were associated with biomarkers indicative of a higher aggressiveness in breast cancer. Although US-DOT and DCE-MRI both measured the vascular properties of breast cancer, parameters from the two imaging modalities showed a weak association presumably due to their different contrast mechanisms and depth sensitivities.
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.