Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401897›Full record

SynthesisThe oncologist2016

FDG-PET/CT and MRI for Evaluation of Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Sara Sheikhbahaei, Tyler J Trahan, Jennifer Xiao, Mehdi Taghipour, Esther Mena, Roisin M Connolly, Rathan M Subramaniam

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The oncologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 93 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 93 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

130 citing papers in PubMed, 93 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 230 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Association of proton-density fat fraction with osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara SheikhbahaeiRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Tyler J TrahanRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jennifer XiaoRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mehdi TaghipourRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Esther MenaRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Roisin M ConnollyDepartment of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Rathan M SubramaniamRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA Rathan.Subramaniam@UTSouthwestern.edu.
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study compared the diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of (18)F-fluoro-2-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging in assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer.

methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE (last updated in June 2015). Studies investigating the performance of MRI and FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT imaging during or after completion of NAC in patients with histologically proven breast cancer were eligible for inclusion. We considered only studies reporting a direct comparison between these imaging modalities to establish precise summary estimates in the same setting of patients. Pathologic response was considered as the reference standard. Two authors independently screened and selected studies that met the inclusion criteria and extracted the data.

resultsA total of 10 studies were included. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity across all included studies were 0.71 and 0.77 for FDG-PET/CT (n = 535) and 0.88 and 0.55 for MRI (n = 492), respectively. Studies were subgrouped according to the time of therapy assessment. In the intra-NAC setting, FDG-PET/CT imaging outperformed MRI with fairly similar pooled sensitivity (0.91 vs. 0.89) and higher specificity (0.69 vs. 0.42). However, MRI appeared to have higher diagnostic accuracy than FDG-PET/CT imaging when performed after the completion of NAC, with significantly higher sensitivity (0.88 vs. 0.57).

conclusionAnalysis of the available studies of patients with breast cancer indicates that the timing of imaging for NAC-response assessment exerts a major influence on the estimates of diagnostic accuracy. FDG-PET/CT imaging outperformed MRI in intra-NAC assessment, whereas the overall performance of MRI was higher after completion of NAC, before surgery. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The timing of therapy assessment imaging exerts a major influence on overall estimates of diagnostic accuracy. (18)F-fluoro-2-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging outperformed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in intra-neoadjuvant chemotherapy assessment with fairly similar pooled sensitivity and higher specificity. However, MRI appeared to be more accurate than FDG-PET/CT in predicting pathologic response when used in the post-therapy setting.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyFluorodeoxyglucose F1818F-fluoro-2-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomographyBreast cancerMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisNeoadjuvant chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID27401897
PMCPMC4978549
OpenAlexW2464012045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.