ArticleAsia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology2020
Is there a difference in FDG PET findings of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with and without coexisting DCIS?
Article in Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging in Interventional Radiology: Breast Cryoablation.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
- Pre-surgical cryoablation in ≤ 2 cm ER + /HER2-tumors. Prognostic factors for the presence of residual invasive carcinoma.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesStudies have reported that invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) show lower metastatic potential and recurrence and better overall survival than pure IDC. In this study, we assessed F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images of patients with newly diagnosed IDC to determine if there is any difference in PET findings in IDC-DCIS and pure IDC cases.
methodsFDG PET/CT images of patients with newly diagnosed IDC of the breast who subsequently underwent breast surgery and had histopathology result in our records were further evaluated. Tumor grade, pathological staging, and presence of DCIS were noted from the histopathology results. Standardized uptake value (SUV) of the primary tumor (SUV
resultsFifty seven (57) patients with IDC were included. Coexisting DCIS was present in 44 (IDC-DCIS) and not present in 13 (pure IDC) cases. Per histopathology, the primary tumor was unifocal in 33 IDC-DCIS (75%) and 12 pure IDC (92.3%) cases, and multifocal in 11 IDC-DCIS cases (25%), and 1 pure IDC case (7.7%). FDG uptake was multifocal in 20 IDC-DCIS cases (45.5%) and 1 pure IDC case (7.7%), and unifocal in 24 IDC-DCIS (54.5%), and 12 pure IDC (92.3%) cases. There was no significant difference in patient age, size of the primary tumor, SUV
conclusionIn our preliminary findings, multifocal breast FDG uptake and multifocal tumor appear to be more common in IDC-DCIS than pure IDC. There is no significant difference in SUV and size of the primary tumor in IDC-DCIS and pure IDC cases. Axillary metastases appear to be more common in pure IDC than IDC-DCIS cases.
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.