Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34829366›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Analyzing the Estrogen Receptor Status of Liver Metastases with [

Jorianne Boers, Naila Loudini, Robbert J de Haas, Antoon T M Willemsen, Bert van der Vegt, Elisabeth G E de Vries, Geke A P Hospers, Carolina P Schröder, Andor W J M Glaudemans, Erik F J de Vries

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CouldDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. New Radiopharmaceutical Tracers in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy.Anti-cancer agents in medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Dynamic whole-body [EJNMMI research · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jorianne BoersDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.
Naila LoudiniDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.
Robbert J de HaasDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4915-6781
Antoon T M WillemsenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bert van der VegtDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2613-1506
Elisabeth G E de VriesDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.
Geke A P HospersDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.
Carolina P SchröderDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.
Andor W J M GlaudemansDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8081-0641
Erik F J de VriesDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6915-1590
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

Dutch Cancer Society Grant 2012-5565Pfizer Oncology The Netherlands Grant WI205548
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) with 16α-[

methodsPatients with metastatic breast cancer (

resultsVisual analysis allowed ER assessment of liver metastases with 100% specificity and 18% sensitivity. Quantitative analysis improved the sensitivity. Reduction of the region-of-interest size did not further improve the results, but background correction improved ER assessment, resulting in 83% specificity and 77% sensitivity. Using separate thresholds for ER+ and ER- metastases, positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 75%, respectively, could be obtained, although 30% of metastases remained inconclusive.

conclusionIn the majority of liver metastases, ER status can be determined with [

Indexed as

breast cancerestrogen receptorFES-PET/CTliver metastasesquantification

Identifiers

PMID34829366
PMCPMC8617814
OpenAlexW3208734795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.