ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Diagnostic performance of
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 279 treatment-naive female patients histopathologically diagnosed with Luminal A type breast cancer who underwent
resultsALN metastasis was confirmed in 152 (54.5%) patients. All quantitative parameters were significantly higher in the metastatic group (p < 0.001). While expert-based visual analysis showed 84.6% accuracy, axillary SUVmax (AUC: 0.881, 95% CI: 0.841-0.920) significantly outperformed visual assessment (AUC: 0.851, p = 0.031). At a cutoff of 0.93, axillary SUVmax yielded 83.6% sensitivity and 79.5% specificity. The Combined Model, integrating visual and quantitative data, achieved the highest diagnostic power (AUC: 0.889) and was statistically superior to axillary SUVmax alone (p = 0.022). The incorporation of quantitative data correctly reclassified 29% (NRI) of metastatic patients initially reported as false negatives in visual analysis and improved overall discrimination by 41.4% (IDI). DCA revealed that the combined model offered a higher net clinical benefit than standard surgical approaches within a 20-90% risk threshold range.
conclusionIn Luminal A-type breast cancer, objective quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters and their derived multiparametric models significantly exceed the diagnostic limitations of conventional visual assessment. By providing high net clinical benefit in the surgical decision-making process, the proposed combined model has the potential to serve as a valuable personalized decision support tool for the management of high-risk patients and the de-escalation of invasive surgery in low-risk cohorts.
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.