ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022
Diagnostic performance of dedicated breast positron emission tomography.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter prospective study of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) for breast cancer: examination in preoperative patients.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Can the Newer Model of Breast-Specific Positron Emission Tomography Reduce the "Blind Area"?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) has been developed for detecting smaller breast cancer. We investigated the diagnostic performance of dbPET in patients with known breast cancer.
methodsEighty-two preoperative patients with breast cancer were included in the study (84 tumours: 11 ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS], 73 invasive cancers). They underwent mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (US), and contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before whole-body PET/MRI (WBPET/MRI) and dbPET. We evaluated the sensitivity of all modalities, and the association between the maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) level and histopathological features.
resultsThe sensitivities of MMG, US, MRI, WBPET/MRI and dbPET for all tumours were 81.2% (65/80), 98.8% (83/84), 98.6% (73/74), 86.9% (73/84), and 89.2% (75/84), respectively. For 11 DCIS and 22 small invasive cancers (≤ 2 cm), the sensitivity of dbPET (84.9%) tended to be higher than that of WBPET/MRI (69.7%) (p = 0.095). Seven tumours were detected by dbPET only, but not by WBPET/MRI. Five tumours were detected by only WBPET/MRI because of the blind area of dbPET detector, requiring a wider field of view. After making the mat of dbPET detector thinner, all 22 scanned tumours were depicted. The higher SUVmax of dbPET was significantly related to the negative oestrogen receptor status, higher nuclear grade, and higher Ki67 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe sensitivity of dbPET for early breast cancer was higher than that of WBPET/MRI. High SUVmax was related to aggressive features of tumours. Moreover, dbPET can be used for the diagnosis and oncological evaluation of 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.