ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2018
Added value of dedicated axillary hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI for improved axillary nodal staging in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients: a feasibility study.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Targeting the Future of Axillary Staging in Node Positive Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Primary Systemic Therapy. A Comparative Study Between Sentinel Node Biopsy vs PET/MRI.
Targeting the Future of Axillary Staging in Early Breast Cancer: A Comparative Study: Sentinel Node Biopsy vs PET/MRI
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of PET/computed tomography versus PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in the N- and M-staging of breast cancer patients.Nuclear medicine communications · 2020Pooled it
- [Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Trial
- Diagnostic accuracy of modern imaging following neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a comparative analysis of ultrasound versus [18F] FDG PET/MRI in breast response assessment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Internal mammary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients based on anatomical imaging and functional imaging.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Review
- Preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis using deep learning-based features.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2022Article
- Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Optimal Selection of Imaging Examination for Lymph Node Detection of Breast Cancer With Different Molecular Subtypes.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical advances in PET-MRI for breast cancer.The Lancet. Oncology · 2022Review
- Value ofEJNMMI research · 2021Article
- PET/MRI for Staging the Axilla in Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and the Rationale for SNB vs. PET/MRI Trials.Cancers · 2021Review
- Prospective comparison of CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients: Initial results.PloS one · 2021Article
- Prospective evaluation of whole-body MRI andEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Article
- Impact ofEuropean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Lymph Node Imaging in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: Concurrent Diagnostic Tools.The oncologist · 2020Review
- Progress and Future Trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI Molecular Imaging Approaches for Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?European radiology · 2019Article
- Can integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR replace sentinel lymph node resection in malignant melanoma?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Is the whole larger than the sum of the parts? Integrated PET/MRI as a tool for response prediction.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
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
purposeTo investigate the feasibility and potential added value of dedicated axillary 18F-FDG hybrid PET/MRI, compared to standard imaging modalities (i.e. ultrasound [US], MRI and PET/CT), for axillary nodal staging in clinically node-positive breast cancer.
methodsTwelve patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer underwent axillary US and dedicated axillary hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI. Nine of the 12 patients also underwent whole-body PET/CT. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were measured for the primary breast tumor and the most FDG-avid axillary lymph node. A positive axillary lymph node on dedicated axillary hybrid PET/MRI was defined as a moderate to very intense FDG-avid lymph node. The diagnostic performance of dedicated axillary hybrid PET/MRI was calculated by comparing quantitative and its qualitative measurements to results of axillary US, MRI and PET/CT. The number of suspicious axillary lymph nodes was subdivided as follows: N0 (0 nodes), N1 (1-3 nodes), N2 (4-9 nodes) and N3 (≥ 10 nodes).
resultsAccording to dedicated axillary hybrid PET/MRI findings, seven patients were diagnosed with N1, four with N2 and one with N3. With regard to mean SUVmax, there was no significant difference in the primary tumor (9.0 [±5.0] vs. 8.6 [±5.7], p = 0.678) or the most FDG-avid axillary lymph node (7.8 [±5.3] vs. 7.7 [±4.3], p = 0.767) between dedicated axillary PET/MRI and PET/CT. Compared to standard imaging modalities, dedicated axillary hybrid PET/MRI resulted in changes in nodal status as follows: 40% compared to US, 75% compared to T2-weighted MRI, 40% compared to contrast-enhanced MRI, and 22% compared to PET/CT.
conclusionsAdding dedicated axillary 18F-FDG hybrid PET/MRI to diagnostic work-up may improve the diagnostic performance of axillary nodal staging in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients.
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.