ArticleMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy2018
The Role of
Article in Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abnormal expression of miR-22-5p in breast cancer patients and its correlation with 18 F-FDG PET/CT features and serum-related tumor markers.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Association of tumor markers CA 15-3, CEA, and CA 125 with [Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Consensus of the Spanish society of laboratory medicine and the Spanish society of medical oncology on the methodology and criteria for evaluation of circulating tumour markers in breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021Article
- Examining the evolving utility ofTranslational cancer research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the follow-up of breast cancer patients, who underwent a PET/CT scan due to a suspicion of recurrence based on elevated levels of serum tumor markers.
methodsSeventy-seven consecutive patients were included in this study. PET/CT scan results were compared with the final diagnoses that were obtained from histopathological sampling or a minimum 6 months of radiological follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT for detecting recurrence were calculated.
resultsAll 77 patients had increased serum cancer antigen 15-3 levels while 37 had increased serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels. According to PET/CT scan results, 59 of 77 patients (PET/CT positive) had local recurrence and/or distant metastasis while there was no pathological finding in 18 patients (PET/CT negative). In a follow-up of minimum 6 months, tumor recurrence was confirmed in 58 of "PET/CT positive" patients while no tumor recurrence was detected in 16 of "PET/CT negative" patients. According to these results the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT for detecting recurrence on a per-person basis were calculated as 98%, 88%, 96%, 94% and 96%, respectively.
conclusionIn case of elevated levels of serum tumor markers, PET/CT has a high diagnostic accuracy in detecting tumor recurrence in patients with breast cancer, and it is an effective modality that can be used in addition to conventional imaging techniques.
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.