Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35152355›Full record

ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2022

Review of imaging techniques for evaluating morphological and functional responses to the treatment of bone metastases in prostate and breast cancer.

J Orcajo-Rincon, J Muñoz-Langa, J M Sepúlveda-Sánchez, G C Fernández-Pérez, M Martínez, E Noriega-Álvarez, S Sanz-Viedma, J C Vilanova, A Luna

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Molecular imaging of bone metastasis.Journal of bone oncology · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

J Orcajo-RinconNuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
J Muñoz-LangaMedical Oncology, Hospital Dr. Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia, Spain.
J M Sepúlveda-SánchezMedical Oncology, Hospital Universitario, 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
G C Fernández-PérezRadiology, Hospital Universitario Río Hortega, Valladolid, Spain.
M MartínezMedical Oncology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
E Noriega-ÁlvarezNuclear Medicine, General University Hospital of Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
S Sanz-ViedmaNuclear Medicine, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Málaga, Spain.
J C VilanovaRadiology, Clínica Girona, Institute Diagnostic Imaging (IDI), University of Girona, Girona, Spain.
A LunaRadiology, HT médica, Clínica Las Nieves, Calle Carmelo Torres, 2, 23007, Jaén, Spain. aluna70@htmedica.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9358-3396
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red · ESHospital Arnau de Vilanova · ESHospital Del Mar · ESHospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real · ESHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESHospital Universitario 12 De Octubre · ESHospital Universitario Río Hortega · ESInstituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESUniversitat de Girona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone metastases are very common complications associated with certain types of cancers that frequently negatively impact the quality of life and functional status of patients; thus, early detection is necessary for the implementation of immediate therapeutic measures to reduce the risk of skeletal complications and improve survival and quality of life. There is no consensus or universal standard approach for the detection of bone metastases in cancer patients based on imaging. Endorsed by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and the Spanish Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SEMNIM) a group of experts met to discuss and provide an up-to-date review of our current understanding of the biological mechanisms through which tumors spread to the bone and describe the imaging methods available to diagnose bone metastasis and monitor their response to oncological treatment, focusing on patients with breast and prostate cancer. According to current available data, the use of next-generation imaging techniques, including whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI, PET/CT, and PET/MRI with novel radiopharmaceuticals, is recommended instead of the classical combination of CT and bone scan in detection, staging and response assessment of bone metastases from prostate and breast cancer.Clinical trial registration: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMalePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstateQuality of LifeRadiopharmaceuticalsRadiopharmaceuticalsBone metastasesBreast cancerConsensusProstate cancerResponse

Identifiers

PMID35152355
PMCPMC9192443
OpenAlexW4212843753

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.