ArticleOncotarget2018
Advantages of systematic trunk SPECT/CT to planar bone scan (PBS) in more than 300 patients with breast or prostate cancer.
Article in Oncotarget, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of an Automated Bone Scan Index Measurement System Enhanced by Deep Learning of the Female Skeletal Structure in Patients with Breast Cancer.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Whole-Body SPECT/CT: Protocol Variation and Technical Consideration-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Applications of SPECT/CT in the Evaluation of Spinal Pathology: A Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation-A Review of the Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Transition to Fast Whole-Body SPECT/CT Bone Imaging: An Assessment of Image Quality.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optimization ofJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Preparation, Characterization, and Radiolabeling of [Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
proposeThe aim of our study was to evaluate the potential benefit of a systematic trunk SPECT/CT associated with a Planar Bone Scan (PBS) in breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PCa) patients at initial staging or recurrence.
resultsIn 328 patients, sensitivities and specificities were between 74.4-93% and 78.8-97.5% for PBS and 97.7-100% and 96.8-98.6% for SPECT/CT respectively. PBS was considered equivocal for 67 compared to only 6 patients for trunk SPECT/CT. Regardless of "optimistic" or "pessimistic" analysis of equivocal trunk SPECT/CT lesions, the trunk SPECT/CT was almost perfect, allowing to rely on this result for excluding metastatic disease which was corroborated by ROC curve analysis. The trunk SPECT/CT allowed downstaging for 62 patients (19%) and upstaging for 11 patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsPBS and a trunk SPECT/CT were systematically performed in all patients. Independent review of PBS and trunk SPECT/CT was performed for each patient and an abnormality interpretative score (Sc) with 3 levels was built: Sc 1: metastatic or probably metastatic pattern, Sc 2: equivocal pattern, Sc 3: benign or probably benign pattern or no abnormality. The bone pattern status was defined by at least 1 year follow-up. The clinical impact was evaluated in terms of down and upstaging in patient analysis.
conclusionsTrunk SPECT/CT improves the performance of PBS in BC and PCa assessments and results in improvements in both the detection performance of bone metastases as well as a better characterization of equivocal lesions.
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.