Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36766472›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Prone versus Supine FDG PET/CT in the Staging of Breast Cancer.

Lara Nassar, Mutaz Kassas, Alain S Abi-Ghanem, Malak El-Jebai, Safaa Al-Zakleet, Amro S Baassiri, Rami Abou Naccoul, Andrew Barakat, Arafat Tfayli, Hazem Assi and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improvement of image quality for small lesion sizes inAsia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

15 authors.

Lara NassarDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-4076-2224
Mutaz KassasDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-7056-1749
Alain S Abi-GhanemDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-9004-807X
Malak El-JebaiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.
Safaa Al-ZakleetDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.
Amro S BaassiriYale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8028, USA.
Rami Abou NaccoulDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.
Andrew BarakatDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.
Arafat TfayliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Naef K. Basile Cancer Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.
Hazem AssiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Naef K. Basile Cancer Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-8483-0938
Ghina BerjawiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.
Enrique Estrada-LobatoNuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 1400, Austria.
Francesco GiammarileNuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 1400, Austria.
Sobhan VinjamuriNuclear Medicine, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Liverpool L7-8YE, UK.
Mohamad HaidarDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 1107-2020, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-6431-3274

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Supine [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission technology/computed tomography (PET/CT) is a commonly used modality for the initial staging of breast cancer, and several previous studies have shown superior sensitivity and specificity of prone FDG PET/CT in comparison to its supine counterpart. This retrospective study included 25 females with breast cancer referred for staging. They underwent supine FDG PET/CT followed by prone FDG PET/CT. The outcomes were: number of primary breast lesions, anatomical site of FDG-avid lymph nodes (LNs), and number and type of bone lesions, with SUVmax of all corresponding parameters. Performance was superior in prone acquisition compared to supine acquisition, with the respective results: 29 vs. 22 breast tumor lesions detected, 62 vs. 27 FDG-avid axillary LNs detected, sensitivity of 68% vs. 57%, specificity of 64% vs. 53%. The detection rate of axillary LNs in the prone position was significantly higher (

Indexed as

breast cancerFDG PET/CTnuclearprone acquisitionstaging

Identifiers

PMID36766472
PMCPMC9914486

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.