Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29435855›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2018

The clinical impact of molecular breast imaging in women with proven invasive breast cancer scheduled for breast-conserving surgery.

Angela Collarino, Renato A Valdés Olmos, Lotta G A J van Berkel, Peter A Neijenhuis, Lidy M H Wijers, Frederik Smit, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, Lenka M Pereira Arias-Bouda

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Current and future perspectives of molecular breast imaging with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  3. Current Concepts in Molecular Breast Imaging.Journal of breast imaging · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angela CollarinoSection of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. angelacollarino@tiscali.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-9767
Renato A Valdés OlmosSection of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lotta G A J van BerkelDepartment of Radiology, Alrijne Ziekenhuis, Simon Smitweg 1, 2353 GA, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Peter A NeijenhuisDepartment of Surgery, Alrijne Ziekenhuis, Simon Smitweg 1, 2353 GA, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Lidy M H WijersDepartment of Radiology, Alrijne Ziekenhuis, Simon Smitweg 1, 2353 GA, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Frederik SmitSection of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lioe-Fee de Geus-OeiSection of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lenka M Pereira Arias-BoudaSection of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the clinical utility of molecular breast imaging (MBI) in patients with proven invasive breast cancer scheduled for breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

methodsFollowing approval by the institutional review board and written informed consent, records of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer scheduled for BCS who had undergone MBI for local staging in the period from March 2012 till December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed.

resultsA total of 287 women (aged 30-88 years) were evaluated. MBI showed T stage migration in 26 patients (9%), with frequent detection of in situ carcinoma around the tumor. Surgical management was adjusted in 14 of these patients (54%). In 17 of 287 patients (6%), MBI revealed 21 proven additional lesions in the ipsilateral, contralateral breast or both. In 18 of these additional foci (86%), detected in 15 patients, malignancy was found. Thirteen of these 15 patients had ipsilateral cancer and 2 patients bilateral malignancy. In total, MBI revealed a larger tumor extent, additional tumor foci or both in 40 patients (14%), leading to treatment adjustment in 25 patients (9%).

conclusionMBI seems to be a useful imaging modality with a high predictive value in revealing ipsilateral and bilateral disease not visualized by mammography and ultrasound. It may play an important role in delineating the extent of the index lesion during preoperative planning. Incorporation of MBI in the clinical work-up as an adjunct modality to mammography and ultrasound may lead to better selection of patients who could benefit from BCS.

Indexed as

Molecular ImagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPreoperative CareRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBreast cancerBreast-specific gamma imagingBSGIMBIMolecular breast imagingPreoperative breast imaging

Identifiers

PMID29435855
PMCPMC5953986
OpenAlexW2789065148

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.