ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Validation of Quantitative Ultrasound and Texture Derivative Analyses-Based Model for Upfront Prediction of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work was conducted in order to validate a pre-treatment quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and texture derivative analyses-based prediction model proposed in our previous study to identify responders and non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. The validation cohort consisted of 56 breast cancer patients diagnosed between the years 2018 and 2021. Among all patients, 53 were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and three had unplanned changes in their chemotherapy cycles. Radio Frequency (RF) data were collected volumetrically prior to the start of chemotherapy. In addition to tumour region (core), a 5 mm tumour-margin was also chosen for parameters estimation. The prediction model, which was developed previously based on quantitative ultrasound, texture derivative, and tumour molecular subtypes, was used to identify responders and non-responders. The actual response, which was determined by clinical and pathological assessment after lumpectomy or mastectomy, was then compared to the predicted response. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score for determining chemotherapy response of all patients in the validation cohort were 94%, 67%, 96%, 57%, and 95%, respectively. Removing patients who had unplanned changes in their chemotherapy resulted in a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score of all patients in the validation cohort of 94%, 100%, 100%, 50%, and 97%, respectively. Explanations for the misclassified cases included unplanned modifications made to the type of chemotherapy during treatment, inherent limitations of the predictive model, presence of DCIS in tumour structure, and an ill-defined tumour border in a minority of cases. Validation of a model was conducted in an independent cohort of patient for the first time to predict the tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using quantitative ultrasound, texture derivate, and molecular features in patients with breast cancer. Further research is needed to improve the positive predictive value and evaluate whether the treatment outcome can be improved in predicted non-responders by switching to other treatment options.
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.