ArticleEuropean radiology2019
What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07587086 (Use of Imaging Markers by Fluorocholine PET/MR to Predict Molecular Subtypes and Clinical Outcomes of Breast Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Use of Imaging Markers by Fluorocholine PET/MR to Predict Molecular Subtypes and Clinical Outcomes of Breast Cancer: A Pilot Study
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Guideline
- Diagnostic performance of whole-body [European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI for distant metastases in patients with malignant tumors: a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled 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
- Clinical PET/MR.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of distant metastasis risk in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.PloS one · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance ofOncology letters · 2024Article
- Radiotracer Innovations in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of Recent Progress.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The use of PET/MRI in radiotherapy.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- The current role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Internal mammary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients based on anatomical imaging and functional imaging.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Review
- PET/MR imaging in gynecologic cancer: tips for differentiating normal gynecologic anatomy and benign pathology versus cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- A review on the added value of whole-body MRI in metastatic lobular breast cancer.European radiology · 2022Review
- Detection of distant metastases and distant second primary cancers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: comparison of [Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Review of imaging techniques for evaluating morphological and functional responses to the treatment of bone metastases in prostate and breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022Review
- The NILS Study Protocol: A Retrospective Validation Study of an Artificial Neural Network Based Preoperative Decision-Making Tool for Noninvasive Lymph Node Staging in Women with Primary Breast Cancer (ISRCTN14341750).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Dynamic Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging versus Ultrasonic Diffused Optical Tomography in Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Prediction for Distant Metastasis of Breast Cancer Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Images under Deep Learning.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Clinical advances in PET-MRI for breast cancer.The Lancet. Oncology · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months.
resultsNine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively.
conclusionsReader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis. KEY POINTS: • N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30267154What 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.