Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37555959›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Assessment of whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted sequences in the initial staging of breast cancer patients at high risk of metastases in comparison with PET-CT: a prospective cohort study.

Nathalie A Hottat, Dominique A Badr, Meriem Ben Ghanem, Tatiana Besse-Hammer, Sylvie M Lecomte, Catherine Vansteelandt, Sophie L Lecomte, Chirine Khaled, Veerle De Grove, Georges Salem Wehbe and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nathalie A HottatDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020, Brussels, Belgium. nathalie.hottat@chu-brugmann.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2144-2436
Dominique A BadrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Meriem Ben GhanemDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020, Brussels, Belgium.
Tatiana Besse-HammerClinical Research Unit, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Sylvie M LecomteDepartment of Oncology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Catherine VansteelandtDepartment of Oncology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Sophie L LecomteDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Chirine KhaledDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Veerle De GroveDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020, Brussels, Belgium.
Georges Salem WehbeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Mieke M CannieDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place A. Van Gehuchten 4, 1020, Brussels, Belgium.
Jacques C JaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the diffusion-weighted whole-body-MRI (WBMRI) in the initial staging of breast cancer at high risk of metastases in comparison with positron emission tomography (PET)-CT.

methodsForty-five women were prospectively enrolled. The inclusion criteria were female gender, age >18, invasive breast cancer, an initial PET-CT, and a performance status of 0-2. The exclusion criteria were contraindication to WB-MRI and breast cancer recurrence. The primary outcome was the concordance of WB-MRI and PET-CT in the diagnosis of distant metastases, whereas secondary outcomes included their concordance for the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes (LN), as well as the agreement of WB-MRI interpretation between two radiologists.

resultsThe mean age was 51.2 years with a median size of the primary tumor of 30 mm. Concordance between the two modalities was almost perfect for metastases staging, all sites included (k = 0.862), with excellent interobserver agreement. The accuracy of WB-MRI for detecting regional LN, distant LN, lung, liver, or bone metastases ranged from 91 to 96%. In 2 patients, WB-MRI detected bone metastases that were overlooked by PET-CT. WB-MRI showed a substantial agreement with PET-CT for staging the primary tumor, regional LN status, and stage (k = 0.766, k = 0.756, and k = 0.785, respectively) with a high interobserver agreement.

conclusionWB-MRI including DWI could be a reliable and reproducible examination in the initial staging of breast cancer patients at high risk of metastases, especially for bone metastases and therefore could be used as a surrogate to PET-CT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Whole-body-MRI including DWI is a promising technique for detecting metastases in the initial staging of breast cancer at high risk of metastases. KEY POINTS: Whole-body-MRI (WB-MRI) was effective for detecting metastases in the initial staging of 45 breast cancer patients at high risk of metastases in comparison with PET-CT. Concordance between WB-MRI and PET-CT was almost perfect for metastases staging, all sites included, with excellent interobserver agreement. The accuracy of WB-MRI for detecting bone metastases was 92%.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProspective StudiesWhole Body ImagingFluorodeoxyglucose F18Breast neoplasmsDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm metastasisPositron-emission tomography

Identifiers

PMID37555959
OpenAlexW4385683696

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.