ArticleScientific reports2022
Malignant prediction of incidental findings using ring-type dedicated breast positron emission tomography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The classification according to uptake patterns and metabolic parameters on ring-type dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) is useful for detecting breast cancer. This study investigated the performance of dbPET for incidental findings that were not detected by mammography and ultrasonography. In 1,076 patients with breast cancer who underwent dbPET, 276 findings were incidentally diagnosed before treatment. Each finding was categorized as focus (uptake size ≤ 5 mm), mass (> 5 mm), or non-mass (multiple uptake) according to uptake patterns. Non-mass uptakes were additionally classified based on their distributions as-linear, focal, segmental, regional, or diffuse. Thirty-two findings (11.6%) were malignant and 244 (88.4%) were benign. Visually, 227 (82.3%) findings were foci, 7 (2.5%) were masses, and 42 (15.2%) were non-masses. Malignant rates of focus, mass, and non-mass were 9.7%, 28.6%, and 19.0%, respectively. In the non-mass findings, 23 were regional and diffuse distributions, and presented as benign lesions. Focus uptake with low lesion-to-background ratio (LBR) and no hereditary risk were relatively low (2.7%) in breast cancer. In multivariate analysis, LBR and hereditary risk were significantly associated with breast cancer (p = 0.006 and p = 0.013, respectively). Uptake patterns, LBR, and hereditary risk are useful for predicting breast cancer risk in incidental dbPET findings.
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.