ArticlePloS one2021
Prospective comparison of CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients: Initial results.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iodine Seed-Marking Protocol for Response-Guided Axillary Treatment After Systemic Therapy for Node-Positive Breast Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2025Article
- High incidence and poor prognosis of bone metastases in functioning small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Guidance for Canadian Breast Cancer Practice: National Consensus Recommendations for Clinical Staging of Patients Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Prediction of therapy response of breast cancer patients with machine learning based on clinical data and imaging data derived from breast [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Conventional Imaging, MRI andCancers · 2023Article
- Correlation between Imaging Markers Derived from PET/MRI and Invasive Acquired Biomarkers in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Lung Nodules Missed in Initial Staging of Breast Cancer Patients in PET/MRI-Clinically Relevant?Cancers · 2022Article
- Review of imaging techniques for evaluating morphological and functional responses to the treatment of bone metastases in prostate and breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal computed tomography and whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging in newly diagnosed, histopathological proven breast cancer. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 80 consecutive women with newly diagnosed and histopathologically confirmed breast cancer were enrolled in this prospective study. Following inclusion criteria had to be fulfilled: (1) newly diagnosed, treatment-naive T2-tumor or higher T-stage or (2) newly diagnosed, treatment-naive triple-negative tumor of every size or (3) newly diagnosed, treatment-naive tumor with molecular high risk (T1c, Ki67 >14%, HER2neu over-expression, G3). All patients underwent a thoraco-abdominal ceCT and a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI. All datasets were evaluated by two experienced radiologists in hybrid imaging regarding suspect lesion count, localization, categorization and diagnostic confidence. Images were interpreted in random order with a reading gap of at least 4 weeks to avoid recognition bias. Histopathological results as well as follow-up imaging served as reference standard. Differences in staging accuracy were assessed using Mc Nemars chi2 test.
resultsCT rated the N stage correctly in 64 of 80 (80%, 95% CI:70.0-87.3) patients with a sensitivity of 61.5% (CI:45.9-75.1), a specificity of 97.6% (CI:87.4-99.6), a PPV of 96% (CI:80.5-99.3), and a NPV of 72.7% (CI:59.8-82.7). Compared to this, 18F-FDG PET/MRI determined the N stage correctly in 71 of 80 (88.75%, CI:80.0-94.0) patients with a sensitivity of 82.1% (CI:67.3-91.0), a specificity of 95.1% (CI:83.9-98.7), a PPV of 94.1% (CI:80.9-98.4) and a NPV of 84.8% (CI:71.8-92.4). Differences in sensitivities were statistically significant (difference 20.6%, CI:-0.02-40.9; p = 0.008). Distant metastases were present in 7/80 patients (8.75%). 18 F-FDG PET/MRI detected all of the histopathological proven metastases without any false-positive findings, while 3 patients with bone metastases were missed in CT (sensitivity 57.1%, specificity 95.9%). Additionally, CT presented false-positive findings in 3 patients.
conclusion18F-FDG PET/MRI has a high diagnostic potential and outperforms CT in assessing the N and M stage in patients with primary breast cancer.
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.