ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal contrast-enhanced cone beam breast computed tomography for monitoring treatment response in breast cancer neoadjuvant therapy: a comprehensive assessment.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Automated Breast Ultrasound for Evaluating Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Comparison with Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Involvement ofFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Article
- Overview of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Medical Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Role of Deep Learning in Advancing Breast Cancer Detection Using Different Imaging Modalities: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Review
- Breast cancer abutting the pectoralis major muscle on breast MRI: what are the clinical implications?The British journal of radiology · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether residual tumor assessment by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is fundamental for a successive surgical strategy. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe collected 55 MRIs performed after NACT.
resultsPathological response rate was 20%. MRI's sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 50%, 88%, 54% and 86%, respectively. We observed a high variability between the different subgroups, with high number of false positives in luminal A/B tumors. Triple negative and HER2+ tumors had almost the same specificity and sensitivity (81% and 50%). Nevertheless, in the HER2+ group, PPV was greater than that in the triple negative group (71% and 33% respectively) and the NPV of the triple negative group was greater than that of the HER2+ one (90% and 64%, respectively). Statistical analysis showed a weak but significant correlation between MRI and pathological assessment of residual tumor dimension.
conclusionThe present study, confirms literature data about MRI accuracy in diagnosing HER2+ and triple negative tumors, but suggests caution in case of luminal tumors' evaluation.
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.