Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28531188›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Monitoring tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer subtypes.

Alexander M Th Schmitz, Suzana C Teixeira, Kenneth E Pengel, Claudette E Loo, Wouter V Vogel, Jelle Wesseling, Emiel J Th Rutgers, Renato A Valdés Olmos, Gabe S Sonke, Sjoerd Rodenhuis and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025
    Trial
  2. Comparison of MRI vs. [Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

12 authors.

Alexander M Th SchmitzDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Suzana C TeixeiraDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Kenneth E PengelDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Claudette E LooDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wouter V VogelDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jelle WesselingDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Emiel J Th RutgersDepartment of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Renato A Valdés OlmosDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Gabe S SonkeDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Sjoerd RodenhuisDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken PeetersDepartment of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Kenneth G A GilhuijsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore guidelines on the use of MRI and PET/CT monitoring primary tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), taking breast cancer subtype into account. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 188 women were included with stages II and III breast cancer. MRI and 18F-FDG-PET/CT were acquired before and during NAC. Baseline pathology was assessed from tumor biopsy. Tumors were stratified into HER2-positive, ER-positive/HER2-negative (ER-positive), and ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-negative (triple-negative) subtypes, and treated according to subtype. Primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCRmic) defined as no or only small numbers of scattered invasive tumor cells. We evaluated imaging scenarios using MRI only, PET/CT only, and combinations.

resultspCRmic was found in 35/46 (76.1%) of HER2-positive, 11/87 (12.6%) of ER-positive, and 31/55 (56.4%) of triple-negative tumors. For HER2-positive tumors, MRI yielded the strongest predictor (AUC: 0.735; sensitivity 36.2%), outperforming PET/CT (AUC: 0.543; p = 0.04), and with comparable results to combined imaging (AUC: 0.708; p = 0.213). In ER-positive tumors, the combination of MRI and PET/CT was slightly superior (AUC: 0.818; sensitivity 55.8%) over MRI alone (AUC: 0.742; p = 0.117) and PET/CT alone (AUC: 0.791). However, even though relatively large numbers of ER-positive tumor patients were included, no significant differences were yet found. For triple-negative tumors, MRI (AUC: 0.855; sensitivity 45.4%), PET/CT (AUC: 0.844; p = 0.220) and combined imaging (AUC: 0.868; p = 0.213) yielded comparable results.

conclusionsFor HER2-positive tumors, MRI shows significant advantage over PET/CT. For triple-negative tumors, comparable results were seen for MRI, PET/CT and combined imaging. For ER-positive tumors, combining MRI with PET/CT may result in optimal response monitoring, although not yet significantly.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsDrug TherapyErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProspective StudiesRadiopharmaceuticalsReceptors, EstrogenERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsReceptors, Estrogen

Identifiers

PMID28531188
PMCPMC5439668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.