ArticleRadiology and oncology2019
Evaluation of MRI accuracy after primary systemic therapy in breast cancer patients considering tumor biology: optimizing the surgical planning.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-operative MRI in evaluating pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a study focused on influencing factors of baseline clinical-pathological and imaging features.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Advances in Imaging in Evaluating the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Predictor of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2022Article
- Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis for predicting response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer patients: A comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and full-field digital mammography.Acta radiologica open · 2021Article
- Prediction of Pathologic Complete Response in Breast Cancer Patients Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Ultrasound in Neoadjuvant Setting.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background We analyzed the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after primary systemic therapy (PST) according to tumor subtype. Patients and methods Two-hundred and four breast cancer patients treated with PST were studied. MRI findings after PST were compared with pathologic findings, and results were stratified based on tumor subtype. Results Of the two-hundred and four breast cancer patients, eighty-four (41.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast. The MRI accuracy for predicting pCR was highest in triple-negative (TN) and HER2-positive (non-luminal) breast cancer (83.9 and 80.9%, respectively). The mean size discrepancy between MRI-measured and pathologic residual tumor size was lowest in TN breast cancer and highest in luminal B-like (HER2-negative) breast cancer (0.45cm vs. 0.98 cm, respectively; p = 0.003). After breast conserving surgery (BCS), we found a lower rate of positive margins in TN breast cancer and a higher rate of positive margins in luminal B-like (HER2-negative) breast cancer (2.4% vs. 23.6%, respectively). Conclusions If tumor response after PST is assessed by MRI, tumor subtype should be considered when BCS is planned. The accuracy of MRI is highest in TN breast cancer.
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.