ArticleCureus2024
Accuracy of MRI Versus PET/CT in the Prediction of Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted 18f-fdg pet/ct for predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Association of Post-Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy MRI andDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Circulating tumor DNA dynamics predict pathological response and guide therapy personalization in the neoadjuvant setting.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Clinical impact of [Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Breast-conserving surgeries have significantly advanced breast cancer treatment, offering favorable oncological outcomes, enhanced cosmetic results, reduced postoperative morbidity, and better psychological acceptance compared to mastectomy. The introduction of neoadjuvant therapy has expanded the applicability of breast conservation surgery to include locally advanced tumors. Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is evaluated using imaging modalities such as breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Accurate prediction of therapeutic response facilitates the planning of surgical and adjuvant treatments. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and PET/CT in predicting treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Methods This retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary care center in Bahrain. A total of 138 patients with locally advanced breast cancer or human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) positive, hormone receptor-negative cancers who underwent breast-conserving surgeries between June 2018 and December 2022 were included. The inclusion criteria focused on patients achieving a complete pathological response following neoadjuvant systemic therapy, ensuring a homogenous study population. Patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancers or metastatic tumors, ineligible for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were excluded. Non-responders and partial responders were also excluded from the study. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, US). Response rates for the imaging modalities and histopathology results were assessed. Agreement between histology and imaging modalities was computed using kappa statistics. Diagnostic performance for predicting "no residual" disease was evaluated using the McNemar Test. All tests were two-tailed, with a p-value <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The study included 138 patients, of whom 73 (52.9%) had an incomplete response or residual disease, while 65 (47.1%) had a complete response or no residual disease according to histology reports. There was slight agreement between post-neoadjuvant MRI and histology results (Cohen's kappa 0.172, p=0.010), while substantial agreement was observed between post-neoadjuvant PET/CT and histology results (Cohen's kappa 0.614, p=0.000). PET/CT demonstrated a higher sensitivity of 93.8% (p<0.001) and a specificity of 68.5%. Although MRI was more specific, the positive predictive value was comparable for both PET/CT and MRI. Conclusion PET/CT shows higher sensitivity and can serve as an early marker for predicting complete pathological response in post-neoadjuvant breast cancer patients. However, the prediction of residual disease is optimized by combining both MRI and PET/CT as diagnostic modalities.
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.