Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36765651›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Quantitative Assessment of Treatment Response in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients by SPECT-CT Bone Imaging-Getting Closer to PET-CT.

Mirela Gherghe, Mario-Demian Mutuleanu, Adina Elena Stanciu, Ionela Irimescu, Alexandra Maria Lazar, Radu Valeriu Toma, Oana Gabriela Trifanescu, Rodica Maricela Anghel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. QuantitativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Quantification in bone SPECT/CT.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors.

Mirela GhergheNuclear Medicine Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila Bucharest, 050474 București, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-4293-0428
Mario-Demian MutuleanuNuclear Medicine Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila Bucharest, 050474 București, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-0483-5908
Adina Elena StanciuCarcinogenesis and Molecular Biology Department, Institute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu", 022328 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-9494-6686
Ionela IrimescuNuclear Medicine Department, Institute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu", 022328 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-4476-469X
Alexandra Maria LazarNuclear Medicine Department, Institute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu", 022328 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-1832-4719
Radu Valeriu TomaOncology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila Bucharest, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Oana Gabriela TrifanescuOncology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila Bucharest, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-9566-7067
Rodica Maricela AnghelOncology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila Bucharest, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer represents the major cause of death mainly through its ability to spread to other organs, highlighting the importance of metastatic disease diagnosis and accurate follow up for treatment management purposes. Although until recently the main method for imaging interpretation was represented by qualitative methods, quantitative analysis of SPECT-CT data represents a viable, objective option.

methodsSeventy-five breast cancer patients presenting metastatic bone disease underwent at least two Bone SPECT-CT studies using [

resultsOur findings show a good positive relationship between the qualitative methods of imaging interpretation and quantitative analysis, with a correlation coefficient of 0.608 between qualitative whole body scintigraphy and quantitative SPECT-CT, and a correlation coefficient of 0.711 between the qualitative and quantitative interpretation of SPECT-CT data; nevertheless, there is a need for accurate, objective and reproducible methods for imaging interpretation, especially for research purposes.

conclusionsQuantitative evaluation of the SPECT-CT data has the potential to be the first choice of imaging interpretation for patient follow up and treatment response evaluation, especially for research purposes, because of its objectivity and expression of uptake changes in absolute units.

Indexed as

metastatic bone diseasequalitative imaging interpretationquantitative analysisSPECT-CT

Identifiers

PMID36765651
PMCPMC9913230

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.