Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36359554›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Evaluation of

Maxwell Ducharme, Hailey A Houson, Solana R Fernandez, Suzanne E Lapi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maxwell DucharmeDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9765-2029
Hailey A HousonDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Solana R FernandezDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Suzanne E LapiDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0090-0191
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and approximately 25% of those cases will be HER2-positive. Current methods for diagnosing HER2-positive breast cancer involve using IHC and FISH from suspected cancer biopsies to quantify HER2 expression. HER2 PET imaging could potentially increase accuracy and improve the diagnosis of lesions that are not available for biopsies. Using two previously discovered HER2-targeting peptides, we modified each peptide with the chelator DOTA and a PEG2 linker resulting in DOTA-PEG2-GSGKCCYSL (P5) and DOTA-PEG2-DTFPYLGWWNPNEYRY (P6). Each peptide was labeled with 68Ga and was evaluated for HER2 binding using in vitro cell studies and in vivo tumor xenograft models. Both [68Ga]P5 and [68Ga]P6 showed significant binding to HER2-positive BT474 cells versus HER2-negative MDA-MB-231 cells ([68Ga]P5; 0.68 ± 0.20 versus 0.47 ± 0.05 p < 0.05 and [68Ga]P6; 0.55 ± 0.21 versus 0.34 ± 0.12 p < 0.01). [68Ga]P5 showed a higher percent injected dose per gram (%ID/g) binding to HER2-positive tumors two hours post-injection compared to HER2-negative tumors (0.24 ± 0.04 versus 0.12 ± 0.06; p < 0.05), while the [68Ga]P6 peptide showed significant binding (0.98 ± 0.22 versus 0.51 ± 0.08; p < 0.05) one hour post-injection. These results lay the groundwork for the use of peptides to image HER2-positive breast cancer.

Indexed as

breast cancerHER2imagingpeptidesPET

Identifiers

PMID36359554
PMCPMC9689602
OpenAlexW4308475533

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.