ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2019
FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Guideline
- Stage-dependent performance and molecular subtype-specific relapse patterns on same-session [18F]FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in breast cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Editorial Commentary: Should "heterogeneous response" be considered as new category for assessing treatment response in patients with breast cancer?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Innovations in Positron Emission Tomography and State of the Art in the Evaluation of Breast Cancer Treatment Response.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Impact on the long-term prognosis of FDG PET/CT in luminal-A and luminal-B breast cancer.Nuclear medicine communications · 2022Article
- Rapid Standardized CT-Based Method to Determine Lean Body Mass SUV for PET-A Significant Improvement Over Prediction Equations.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2021Article
- FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Feasibility and Benefits of Applying PERCIST.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Interrater Agreement and Reliability of PERCIST and Visual Assessment When Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Prognostic Value of Dual-Time-PointDiagnostics (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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) can be used for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we aimed to review literature comparing the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in patients with MBC. We made a systematic search in Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library using a modified PICO model. The population was MBC patients and the intervention was PERCIST or RECIST. Quality assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A total of 1975 articles were identified. After screening by title/abstract, 78 articles were selected for further analysis of which 2 duplicates and 33 abstracts/out of focus articles were excluded. The remaining 43 articles provided useful information, but only one met the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria. This was a retrospective study of 65 patients with MBC showing one-year progression-free survival for responders versus non-responders to be 59% vs. 27% (
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.