ArticleBMC cancer2024
Prediction of disease-free survival using strain elastography and diffuse optical tomography in patients with T1 breast cancer: a 10-year follow-up study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Predicting Breast Cancer Pathologic Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Using Bimodal US and MRI.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly-stage breast cancer (BC) presents a certain risk of recurrence, leading to variable prognoses and complicating individualized management. Yet, preoperative noninvasive tools for accurate prediction of disease-free survival (DFS) are lacking. This study assessed the potential of strain elastography (SE) and diffuse optical tomography (DOT) for non-invasive preoperative prediction of recurrence in T1 BC and developed a prediction model for estimating the probability of DFS.
methodsA total of 565 eligible patients with T1 invasive BC were enrolled prospectively and followed to investigate the recurrence. The associations between imaging features and DFS were evaluated and a best-prediction model for DFS was developed and validated.
resultsDuring the median follow-up period of 10.8 years, 77 patients (13.6%) developed recurrences. The fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards model showed a significant trend between an increasing strain ratio (SR) (P < 0.001 for trend) and the total hemoglobin concentration (TTHC) (P = 0.001 for trend) and DFS. In the subgroup analysis, an intensified association between SR and DFS was observed among women who were progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, lower Ki-67 expression, HER2 negative, and without adjuvant chemotherapy and without Herceptin treatment (all P < 0.05 for interaction). Significant interactions between TTHC status and the lymphovascular invasion, estrogen receptor (ER) status, PR status, HER2 status, and Herceptin treatment were found for DFS(P < 0.05).The imaging-clinical combined model (TTHC + SR + clinicopathological variables) proved to be the best prediction model (AUC = 0.829, 95% CI = 0.786-0.872) and was identified as a potential risk stratification tool to discriminate the risk probability of recurrence.
conclusionThe combined imaging-clinical model we developed outperformed traditional clinical prognostic indicators, providing a non-invasive, reliable tool for preoperative DFS risk stratification and personalized therapeutic strategies in T1 BC. These findings underscore the importance of integrating advanced imaging techniques into clinical practice and offer support for future research to validate and expand on these predictive methodologies.
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.