ArticleMedicine2019
Which of the fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerized tomography parameters are better associated with prognostic factors in breast cancer?
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicopathological and molecular predictors of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Trial
- Development and validation of anAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in de novo stage IV breast cancer patients treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Effect of radioactivity outside the field of view on image quality of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: preliminary phantom and clinical studies.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Histopathological Features of Early-stage Invasive Ductal Breast Carcinoma byMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the relationship between the immunohistochemical and histopathological prognostic factors and the metabolic fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) parameters in breast cancer.A total of 94 female patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer (median age: 54.5 years, 94 lesions with size >15 mm) who underwent PET/CT imaging before any treatment were enrolled to this retrospective study. Maximum and average standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVavg), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and tumor/liver uptake ratio (TLR) of the primary tumors were calculated and compared between various histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factor groups.All metabolic parameters were associated with clinical T stage, metabolic M stage, and nuclear grade. The MTV, TLG, and TLR were significantly higher in patients with suspected lymph node metastasis. There were significant differences according to estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor-2 status in the metabolic values other than MTV. In case of progesterone receptor, there were significant differences in the metabolic characteristics except for the MTV and TLG values. The Ki-67 labeling index was moderately correlated with SUVmax, SUVavg, and TLR. All metabolic characteristics except MTV were significantly higher in triple negative breast cancer compared with the other molecular subtypes.The results of the present study suggest that the TLG and TLR values have stronger associations with several prognostic factors in breast cancer (BC) compared with other metabolic parameters.
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.