Trial reportJAMA network open2024
ER-Targeted PET for Initial Staging and Suspected Recurrence in ER-Positive Breast Cancer.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Automated Tools for Lesion Detection onRadiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Trial
- Long-term outcomes and treatment response in early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma: insights from a nationwide population-based study.ESMO open · 2026Article
- Dynamic biomarkers in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer trials: a new hope for precision oncology.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Review
- Response-adaptive breast cancer care in the grey zones: integrating ER and HER2 targeted PET, FDG PET/CT under immunotherapy, and ctDNA kinetics.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- Design and Preclinical Evaluation of FirstJournal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Automated Tools to Analyze FES PET: Translational Potential to Guide Therapy in Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Error in FES Dose in Methods.JAMA network open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: There are insufficient data comparing 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (FES) positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT) with standard-of-care imaging (SOC) for staging locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) or evaluating suspected recurrence. Objective: To determine the detection rate of FES PET/CT and SOC for distant metastases in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive LABC and recurrences in patients with ER-positive BC and suspected recurrence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was conducted as a single-center phase 2 trial, from January 2021 to September 2023. The study design provided 80% power to find a 20% detection rate difference. Participants included patients with ER-positive LABC (cohort 1) or suspected recurrence (cohort 2). Data were analyzed from September 2023 to February 2024. Exposure: Participants underwent both SOC imaging and experimental FES PET/CT. When there were suspicious lesions on imaging, 1 was biopsied for histopathological reference standard to confirm presence (true positive) or absence (false positive) of malignant neoplasm. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was the detection rate of FES PET CT vs SOC for distant metastases and recurrences. Results: A total of 124 patients were accrued, with 62 in cohort 1 (median [IQR] age, 52 [32-84] years) and 62 in cohort 2 (median [IQR] age, 66 [30-93] years). In cohort 1, of 14 true-positive findings, SOC imaging detected 12 and FES detected 11 (P > .99). In cohort 2, of 23 true-positive findings, SOC detected 16 and FES detected 18 (P = .77). In 30 patients with lobular histology, of 11 true-positive findings, SOC detected 5 and FES detected 9 (P = .29). There were 6 false-positive findings on SOC and 1 false-positive finding on FES PET/CT (P = .13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study with pathological findings as the reference standard, no difference was found between FES PET/CT and current SOC imaging for detecting distant metastases in patients with ER-positive LABC or recurrences in patients with ER-positive tumors and suspected recurrence. FES PET/CT could be considered for both clinical indications, which are not part of current Appropriate Use Criteria for FES PET. The findings regarding FES PET/CT in patients with lobular tumors, and for lower false positives than current SOC imaging, warrant further investigation.
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.