ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2023
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progression-free survival prediction and comparative metastasis detection accuracy ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Head-to-Head comparison of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical impact ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- The Evolution and Clinical Impact of Deep Learning Technologies in Breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- Recent advances in theranostics and oncology PET: emerging radionuclides and targets.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- [EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- New Radiopharmaceutical Tracers in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy.Anti-cancer agents in medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Molecular Imaging of Steroid Receptors in Breast Cancer.Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the potential value of dual tracers
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 38 ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients from our center who underwent both
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 15.6 months, progressive disease was observed in 23 out of 38 patients, and the median PFS for the whole cohort was 21.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-29.3]. FES and FDG PET identified 6 patients (15.8%) with FES-negative lesions, suggesting ER heterogeneity in metastatic lesions. The median PFS of these patients was only 5.3 months (95% CI 1.7-8.9), which was substantially shorter than that of patients with 100% FES-positive lesions (median PFS 22.9 months, 95% CI 17.1-28.7, P < 0.001). Patients with 100% FES-positive lesions who had high FES/FDG showed significantly shorter PFS compared to those with low FES/FDG (14.9 vs. 30.5 months, P = 0.003).
conclusionsThis study shows that FDG and FES PET imaging may serve as valuable tools for patient selection in the context of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy combined with endocrine treatment, and have the potential to function as prognostic biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.