Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30506455›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019

Prediction of therapy response in bone-predominant metastatic breast cancer: comparison of [

Gurdip K Azad, Benjamin P Taylor, Adrian Green, Ines Sandri, Angela Swampillai, Mark Harries, Hartmut Kristeleit, Janine Mansi, Vicky Goh, Gary J R Cook

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Comparison ofScientific reports · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. [Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2023
    Article
  11. [Cells · 2022
    Article
  12. Imaging of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gurdip K AzadCancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Benjamin P TaylorDepartment of Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Adrian GreenCancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Ines SandriDepartment of Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Angela SwampillaiDepartment of Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mark HarriesDepartment of Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Hartmut KristeleitDepartment of Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Janine MansiDepartment of Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Vicky GohCancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Gary J R CookCancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. gary.cook@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8732-8134
St Thomas' Hospital · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2012NovPR013Cancer Research UK 16463Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare [ PATIENTS AND

methodsThirty-one patients scheduled for endocrine therapy had up to five bone metastases measured [FDG, NaF PET/CT: maximum standardized uptake value (SUV

resultsTwenty-two patients (median age, 58.6 years, range, 40-79 years) completing baseline and 8-week imaging were included in the final analysis. Per-patient % change in NaF SUV

conclusionsFDG PET/CT and WB-MRI best predicted clinical non-PD and both FDG and NaF PET/CT predicted PFS < 24 weeks. Lesional response heterogeneity occurs with all modalities and flare is common with NaF PET/CT.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFluoridesFluorodeoxyglucose F18Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAdultAgedBone NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisTreatment OutcomeWhole Body ImagingFluoridesFluorodeoxyglucose F18[18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose[18F]-sodium fluorideBone metastasesDiffusion-weighted MRIPositron emission tomography/computed tomographyWhole-body MRI

Identifiers

PMID30506455
PMCPMC6450846
OpenAlexW2900875080

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.