Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37254225›Full record

ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2023

Imaging in metastatic breast cancer, CT, PET/CT, MRI, WB-DWI, CCA: review and new perspectives.

Dione Lother, Marie Robert, Elliot Elwood, Sam Smith, Nina Tunariu, Stephen R D Johnston, Marina Parton, Basrull Bhaludin, Thomas Millard, Kate Downey and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The Role of Estrogen Receptor-Targeted PET with 16α-Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

11 authors.

Dione Lother *The Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Marie Robert *Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, St Herblain, France.
Elliot ElwoodThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Sam SmithThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Nina TunariuThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Stephen R D JohnstonThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Marina PartonThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Basrull BhaludinThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Thomas MillardThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Kate DowneyThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK.
Bhupinder SharmaThe Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Sutton, UK. Bhupinder.Sharma@rmh.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women and remains the second leading cause of death in Western countries. It represents a heterogeneous group of diseases with diverse tumoral behaviour, treatment responsiveness and prognosis. While major progress in diagnosis and treatment has resulted in a decline in breast cancer-related mortality, some patients will relapse and prognosis in this cohort of patients remains poor. Treatment is determined according to tumor subtype; primarily hormone receptor status and HER2 expression. Menopausal status and site of disease relapse are also important considerations in treatment protocols. MAIN BODY: Staging and repeated evaluation of patients with metastatic breast cancer are central to the accurate assessment of disease extent at diagnosis and during treatment; guiding ongoing clinical management. Advances have been made in the diagnostic and therapeutic fields, particularly with new targeted therapies. In parallel, oncological imaging has evolved exponentially with the development of functional and anatomical imaging techniques. Consistent, reproducible and validated methods of assessing response to therapy is critical in effectively managing patients with metastatic breast cancer.

conclusionMajor progress has been made in oncological imaging over the last few decades. Accurate disease assessment at diagnosis and during treatment is important in the management of metastatic breast cancer. CT (and BS if appropriate) is generally widely available, relatively cheap and sufficient in many cases. However, several additional imaging modalities are emerging and can be used as adjuncts, particularly in pregnancy or other diagnostically challenging cases. Nevertheless, no single imaging technique is without limitation. The authors have evaluated the vast array of imaging techniques - individual, combined parametric and multimodal - that are available or that are emerging in the management of metastatic breast cancer. This includes WB DW-MRI, CCA, novel PET breast cancer-epitope specific radiotracers and radiogenomics.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron-Emission TomographyWhole Body ImagingAnatomo-functional imagingMetastatic breast cancerMultimodalMultiparametricResponse assessmentStaging

Identifiers

PMID37254225
PMCPMC10230813

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.