ReviewAJR. American journal of roentgenology2026
The Future of Quantitative Breast Imaging: Integrated to Integral Imaging Biomarkers for Precision Cancer Care, From the
Review in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2026. 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
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This review explores the potential of quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) for guiding personalized breast cancer treatment through prognostic stratification and measurement of treatment response. Accumulating data from prospective clinical trials show that QIBs are more predictive of treatment outcome than conventional sizebased measures (e.g., change in tumor diameter), highlighting these markers' potential clinical impact. Although QIBs have shown utility in the trial setting, clinical adoption has remained limited. In this article, we present biomarkers derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, DWI, [18F]FDG PET, and [18F]FES PET, and highlight implementation challenges including variable acquisition protocols, lack of standardization, and uncertainty around optimal timing of imaging during treatment. We distinguish between integrated biomarkers-those used for correlative or exploratory purposes within a trial-and integral biomarkers-those that are essential to trial design and directly inform patient stratification or therapeutic decisions. Standardization efforts by national and international organizations are underway to ensure imaging marker reliability, and commercial tools supporting clinical translation have become available. Dedicated end-to-end solutions remain needed to integrate QIBs into clinical workflows and ultimately into standard care pathways, to promote these markers' role in patient stratification and adaptive treatment decisions.
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.