ReviewRadiologia brasileira
Gramado consensus on imaging evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer.
Review in Radiologia brasileira. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is a critical pillar in defining the multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy in breast cancer. This consensus aimed to establish national guidelines for imaging assessment of NST, based on the best scientific evidence adapted to the Brazilian context. To this end, a panel of experts was formed, composed of breast radiologists, breast surgeons, oncologists, onco-radiotherapists and breast patholo-gists. The methodology was based on a systematic literature review, followed by face-to-face discussions and rounds of virtual voting (adapted Delphi method), defining consensus when agreement was =75%. As a result, radiological response criteria were standardized, and accuracy, false-negative, and positive rates were determined, as well as the role of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and tomosynthesis, stratified by molecular subtypes. Additionally, recommendations were established for marking the breast lesion and axillary lymph nodes before the start of treatment. Finally, the role of other imaging techniques, such as contrast-enhanced mammography and pos-itron-emission tomography/computed tomography, was discussed, as well as the impact of artificial intelligence as tools for evaluating the response to SNRT.
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.