ArticleCureus2026
Diagnostic Concordance Between Contrast-Enhanced CT and Bone Scintigraphy for Detecting Bone Metastases in Clinical T3/N1 Breast Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone metastasis is a critical determinant of staging, prognosis, and treatment planning in patients with breast cancer. In patients with higher-risk localized disease (clinical T3 and/or N1), both contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy are frequently used; however, the benefit of regular bone scintigraphy in an already-performed CT scan is debatable.
objectiveTo evaluate the concordance between contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) and whole-body bone scintigraphy for detecting bone metastases during initial staging in patients with clinically T3 and/or N1 breast cancer, and to assess the incremental diagnostic value of bone scintigraphy in selected patients.
methodsThis retrospective observational study was carried out during a ten-year period (June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2025) at the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Peshawar, Pakistan (SKMCH&RC). Women with newly diagnosed histopathologically confirmed clinical T3 and/or N1 breast cancer who underwent CECT (chest/abdomen/pelvis) and whole-body bone scintigraphy for initial staging were consecutively included. Patients who had prior treatment or recurrent disease, incomplete imaging documentation, metastases distant from the bone, or primary bone disease were excluded. The imaging results of the bone metastases were classified as positive or negative, and the concordance between the different modalities was evaluated by Cohen's kappa statistics and diagnostic accuracy measures.
conclusionCECT demonstrated high overall concordance with whole-body bone scintigraphy for detecting bone metastases during initial staging of clinically T3/N1 breast cancer. However, bone scintigraphy identified a limited number of additional CT-negative cases, suggesting a modest incremental diagnostic value in selected patients.
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.