Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27540429›Full record

ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016

The Relationship Between Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Expression of Breast Cancer and the Retention Index in Dual Phase (18)F-FDG PET/CT.

Hansol Moon, Woo Chul Noh, Hyun-Ah Kim, Eun-Kyu Kim, Ko Woon Park, Seung Sook Lee, Joon Ho Choi, Kyung Woo Han, Byung Hyun Byun, Ilhan Lim and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Relationship between Baseline [Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prediction of biological characteristics of breast cancer using dual-phase FDG PET/CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Article
  7. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hansol MoonDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Woo Chul NohDepartment of Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyun-Ah KimDepartment of Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Kyu KimDepartment of Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ko Woon ParkDepartment of Radiology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seung Sook LeeNational Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea ; Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joon Ho ChoiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Kyung Woo HanDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Byung Hyun ByunDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Ilhan LimDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Byung Il KimDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Chang Woon ChoiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Sang Moo LimDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea.
Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study investigates the correlation of retention index (RI) using the dual phase FDG PET/CT scan with the breast cancer biomarkers.

methodsA total of 55 patients with breast cancer underwent dual phase FDG PET/CT scans (60 and 120 min after FDG injection) before treatment. SUVmax and SUVmean of the primary breast tumors were measured, then the percent change of SUVmax and SUVmean between the two scans were calculated, and denoted as RImax and RImean, respectively. After the surgical resection of the breast tumor, the status of biomarkers (ER, PR, and HER-2) was evaluated in the postsurgical specimen.

resultsRImean was significantly higher in ER (-) (median, 16.2; IQR, 10.8-21.0) or HER-2 (+) (median, 16.1; IQR, 10.7-21.6) tumors than in ER (+) tumors (median, 9.9; IQR, 5.5-15.3) or HER-2 (-) tumors (median, 10.5; IQR, 5.5-16.1). However, there were no significant differences of SUVmax or RImax according to the ER or HER-2 status. There were no significant differences of any PET parameters between PR (+) and PR (-) tumors. Based off ROC curve analyses, RImean predicted the ER (+) tumors (AUC, 0.699; p = 0.006), and HER-2 (+) tumors (AUC, 0.674; p = 0.022), but not the PR (+) tumors. However, neither SUVmax nor RImax predicted ER (+), PR (+), or HER-2 (+) tumors.

conclusionsRetention index of SUVmean can reflect the ER and HER-2 status of breast cancers. Higher retention index of SUVmean might associate with lower ER expression and higher HER-2 expression.

Indexed as

Breast cancerDual phaseEstrogen receptorHuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2Positron emission tomographyRetention index

Identifiers

PMID27540429
PMCPMC4977256
OpenAlexW2340409967

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.