ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of modern imaging following neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a comparative analysis of ultrasound versus [18F] FDG PET/MRI in breast response assessment.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04826211 (Targeting the Future of Axillary Staging in Node Positive Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Primary Systemic Therapy. A Comparative Study Between Sentinel Node Biopsy vs PET/MRI.), which is not on this 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.
Targeting the Future of Axillary Staging in Node Positive Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Primary Systemic Therapy. A Comparative Study Between Sentinel Node Biopsy vs PET/MRI.
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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurately predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after primary systemic therapy (PST) in breast cancer remains a clinical challenge. This study compares the diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US) and Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging ([18F]FDG PET/MRI) in predicting breast-pCR following PST. Methods: This multicenter analysis included 143 patients: 54 node-positive patients from San Raffaele Hospital, who underwent an additional [18F]FDG PET/MRI within a prospective trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04826211) and 89 cases retrospectively retrieved from the database of Heidelberg Hospital, irrespectively of nodal status at diagnosis. In US, breast clinical complete response (breast cCR) was defined as a tumor size of 0 mm or no sign of tumor in the breast; in [18F]FDG PET/MRI, as the absence of significant [18F]FDG uptake on PET images and contrast-enhancement on MRI. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed across PET only, MRI only, combined PET/MRI (PET or MRI positive), and concordant PET/MRI (both positive). Subgroup analyses explored associations of breast cCR with tumor molecular subtypes. Results: [18F]FDG PET/MRI showed a sensitivity of 62% (95% CI 42%-81%) and a specificity of 67% (95% CI 46%-83%), whereas ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 59% (95% CI 44%-73%) and a specificity of 62% (95% CI 46%-77%) in detecting breast response to PST. No significant difference was observed between [18F]FDG PET/MRI and US in terms of sensitivity (62.9%vs59.1%, p=0.93) and specificity (66.6%vs62.2%, p=0.94) in detecting response to PST. Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested variation in sensitivity: US showed a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI 0.45-0.92) in triple-negative tumors and 50% (95% CI 16%-84%) in HER2-positive tumors, while [18F]FDG PET/MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI 46%-95%) in Luminal B cancers. Conclusion: [18F]FDG PET/MRI and US showed comparable performance in diagnostic accuracy of breast pCR following PST, with varying effectiveness across tumor subtypes. Further research should focus on multimodal imaging strategies integrated with clinical and molecular data.
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.