ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017
Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of PET imaging on triple negative breast cancer: an updated evidence-based perspective.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Pooled it
- Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Guideline
- PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues.Molecular imaging and biology · 2020Pooled it
- The role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT SUVmax values in evaluating treatment response in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients receiving CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Stage-dependent performance and molecular subtype-specific relapse patterns on same-session [18F]FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in breast cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- FDG PET/CT in the post-treatment evaluation of breast cancer: an emphasis on triple-negative breast cancer.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Metabolic Imaging in Electrochemotherapy: Insights from FDG-PET Analysis in Metastatic Melanoma-A Pilot Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in de novo stage IV breast cancer patients treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025Review
- State-of-the-art of multidisciplinary approach of bone metastasis-directed therapy: review and challenging questions for preparation of a GEMO practice guidelines.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025Review
- IsCancers · 2024Review
- Repeatability ofEJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Imaging Molecular Targets and Metabolic Pathways in Breast Cancer for Improved Clinical Management: Current Practice and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- The role of FDG PET assessment in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in the second-line setting.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Innovations in Positron Emission Tomography and State of the Art in the Evaluation of Breast Cancer Treatment Response.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Pretreatment dual-energy CT for predicting early response to induction chemotherapy and survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.European radiology · 2023Article
- Review
- Cost-effectiveness of 2-[Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The current role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Influence of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with stage IV breast cancer undergoing systemic therapy.
methodsSixty-five patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with first- or second-line systemic therapy in prospective clinical trials were included. Response to treatment was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for CE-CT and by PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), respectively.
resultsAll responders by RECIST (n = 22) were also responders by PERCIST, but 40% (17/43) of non-responders by RECIST were responders by PERCIST. Responses according to RECIST and PERCIST both correlated with PFS, but PERCIST showed a significantly higher predictive accuracy (concordance index for PFS: 0.70 vs. 0.60). One-year PFS for responders vs. non-responders by RECIST was 59% vs. 27%, compared to 63% vs. 0% by PERCIST. Four-year DSS of responders and non-responders by RECIST was 50% and 38%, respectively (p = 0.2, concordance index: 0.55) as compared to 58% vs. 18% for PERCIST (p < 0.001, concordance index: 0.65). Response on PET/CT was also a significantly better predictor for DSS than disease control on CE-CT.
conclusionsIn patients with metastatic breast cancer, tumor response on PET/CT appears to be a superior predictor of PFS and DSS than response on CE-CT. Monitoring tumor response by PET/CT may increase the power of clinical trials using tumor response as an endpoint, and may improve patient management in clinical routine.
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.