ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Determination and clinical features of bone pseudoprogression in metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Bone is one of the most common sites of metastasis for breast cancer. The classification of new osteoblastic lesions as progressive disease is currently controversial. Computed tomography (CT), specifically the bone window setting, is the most frequently utilized for evaluating treatment efficacy in bone metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical features and significance associated with bone pseudoprogression. Methods: This retrospective analysis was conducted among twenty-three MBC patients with new osteoblastic lesions during the first-line systemic therapy in Jiangsu Cancer Hospital from January 2018 to December 2023. After assessing treatment response every two cycles by CT (bone window) at least twice, we identified no disease progression in participants, thus defining new osteoblastic lesions as bone pseudoprogression. Participants continued treatment until explicit disease progression was observed (extraosseous disease progression or progressive lysis on bone lesions). Pretreatment baseline and follow-up alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels were analyzed separately at the times of bone progression and pseudoprogression in the same patient. Results: The spine (78.2%) was the predominant metastatic site. The median time to the appearance of bone pseudoprogression after treatment was 1.73 months (95% CI: 1.42-2.04). Furthermore, the median interval between bone pseudoprogression and disease progression was 14.27 months (95% CI: 12.18-16.35). No significant difference in the interval was observed between HER2-positive and HER2-negative MBC patients (15.83 months versus 14.23 months, p=0.79). Compared to the occurrence of disease progression, the levels of ALP decreased or stabilized at pseudoprogression in the same patient. The difference in ΔALP between pseudoprogression and progression was statistically significant (-20U/L vs. 33 U/L, p< 0.001). Conclusions: Osteoblastic new lesions detected using CT (bone window) may be considered bone pseudoprogression, which predominantly occurs in the early stages of treatment. ALP serves as a biomarker for differentiating pseudoprogression from disease progression on CT (bone window) in patients with bone metastasis. Clinicians should exercise caution regarding the appearance of new osteoblastic lesions in patients not exhibiting extraosseous disease progression or progressive lysis on bone lesions.
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.