ArticleOncology reports2018
The role of molecular breast imaging in predicting complete tumor response to treatment and residual tumor extent following neoadjuvant therapy.
Article in Oncology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The residual cancer burden index as a valid prognostic indicator in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Review
- Molecular Breast Imaging-guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Breast Lesions: A New Frontier on Breast Intervention.Journal of breast imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of molecular breast imaging (MBI) in predicting complete tumor response to treatment and residual tumor extent following neoadjuvant therapy. A consecutive series of 43 female patients with large or locally advanced primary breast cancer, scheduled for surgery following neoadjuvant therapy, was retrospectively reviewed. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent MBI using a high‑resolution semiconductor‑based device for image acquisition. MBI data were correlated with surgical histopathological findings. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess differences in residual tumor size with MBI and histopathological examination. From the images obtained using MBI, 7 patients were negative for residual tumors with pathological complete response (specificity, 100%) and positive in 34/36 patients with residual disease (sensitivity, 94.4%), including 26/27 patients with unifocal and 8/9 patients with multicentric/multifocal tumors, 5 of which exhibited multiple microscopic foci scattered in a fibrotic area. Overall accuracy was 95.3% and the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100 and 77.8%, respectively. MBI was false‑negative in one patient with a 2.5‑cm invasive ductal carcinoma located close to the chest wall and in one patient with microscopic foci of epithelial carcinoma. In the patients with unifocal residual tumors, correlation of tumor size between MBI and histopathology was r=0.981 (P<0.0001); however, MBI overestimated the number of lesions in one of these cases. In the patients with multifocal/multicentric tumors, MBI adequately assessed residual tumor extent in 5/8 positive cases, overestimating the number of lesions in one case and underestimating tumor extent in 2 further cases with microscopic foci scattered in a fibrotic area. MBI proved to be a highly accurate diagnostic tool in predicting complete tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy and residual tumor extent, correlating with surgical histopathological findings in 86% of overall cases. A positive result was always associated with the presence of residual disease and MBI tumor size was strongly correlated with histopathological analysis mainly in unifocal residual tumors.
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.