Trial reportScientific reports2024
Phase II study of uPAR-PET/CT for staging of primary breast cancer in comparison with ultrasound and fine needle biopsies.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate initial staging of patients with breast cancer is essential for planning optimal treatment strategies. However, currently, no imaging modality is able to detect lymph node metastases preoperatively with sufficient reliability; therefore, the N status depends on the sentinel node procedure for ~ 70% of patients. In a prospective clinical trial of breast cancer patients, we compared head-to-head uPAR-PET/CT with current standard-of-care, ultrasound (US) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) as staging methods. Forty-nine patients (48 women and 1 man) with biopsy-proven early breast cancer underwent uPAR-PET/CT prior to surgery. All image data were analyzed by two separate teams, each consisting of a highly experienced certified specialist in nuclear medicine and a highly experienced certified specialist in radiology for visualization of primary tumor lesions and detection of lymph node and distant metastases. Histopathological assessment and verification of malignancy in the excised tissues (primary tumors and lymph nodes) were considered standard-of-truth. On a per patient basis, uPAR PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 94% [CI: 83-99%] for detecting the primary tumor (both teams). For the detection of axillary lymph nodes the pooled sensitivity of uPAR PET/CT was 33.3% [CI: 16.5-54.0%], specificity 87.0% [CI: 66.4-97.2%] and accuracy 58.0% [CI: 43.2-71.8%]. In comparison, the standard-of-care preoperative clinical staging algorithm with US and FNB had a sensitivity of 41% [CI: 22-61%] and specificity of 100% [CI: 85-100%] for axillary lymph node metastases. We conclude that the results do not support the use of uPAR PET/CT for staging in breast cancer patients. However, the finding that 94% of primary tumors were uPAR-PET positive may be encouraging for pursuing uPAR theranostics in localized disease. Additionally, other potential applications, such as using uPAR-PET as a prognostic imaging biomarker of tumor aggressiveness, remain to be investigated.
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.