Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36137756›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine2023

Clinical Decision Support for Axillary Lymph Node Staging in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients Based on

Janna Morawitz, Benjamin Sigl, Christian Rubbert, Nils-Martin Bruckmann, Frederic Dietzel, Lena J Häberle, Saskia Ting, Svjetlana Mohrmann, Eugen Ruckhäberle, Ann-Kathrin Bittner and 14 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic performance ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

24 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Janna MorawitzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany; janna.morawitz@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Benjamin SiglDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christian RubbertDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Nils-Martin BruckmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Frederic DietzelDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Lena J HäberleInstitute of Pathology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Saskia TingInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Essen, West German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg-Essen and the German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen, Germany.
Svjetlana MohrmannDepartment of Gynecology, University of Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Eugen RuckhäberleDepartment of Gynecology, University of Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Ann-Kathrin BittnerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Oliver HoffmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Pascal BaltzerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Panagiotis KapetasDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas HelbichDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Paola ClauserDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang P FendlerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen, Germany.
Christoph RischplerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen, Germany.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen, Germany.
Benedikt M SchaarschmidtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and.
Andreas StangInstitute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Essen University Medical Center, Essen, Germany.
Lale UmutluDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and.
Gerald AntochDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Julian CaspersDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Julian KirchnerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DEMedical University of Vienna · ATDeutschen Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung · DEEssen University Hospital · DEInstitut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In addition to its high prognostic value, the involvement of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients also plays an important role in therapy planning. Therefore, an imaging modality that can determine nodal status with high accuracy in patients with primary breast cancer is desirable. Our purpose was to investigate whether, in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, machine-learning prediction models based on simple assessable imaging features on MRI or PET/MRI are able to determine nodal status with performance comparable to that of experienced radiologists; whether such models can be adjusted to achieve low rates of false-negatives such that invasive procedures might potentially be omitted; and whether a clinical framework for decision support based on simple imaging features can be derived from these models.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingRadiopharmaceuticalsSensitivity and SpecificityFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticalsbreast cancerlymph node metastasesmachine learningPET/MRI

Identifiers

PMID36137756
PMCPMC9902847
OpenAlexW4296797525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.