Do new guidelines enable a more accurate comparison of [

A R Sharkey, Hiu Yeung Chen, C Funso-Fayomi, S E Pinder, G J R Cook

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A R SharkeySchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. amyrose.sharkey1@nhs.net.

Hiu Yeung ChenSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.

C Funso-FayomiGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

S E PinderGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

G J R CookSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

Royal College of Radiologists Kodak

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent EANM-SNMMI guidelines suggest that quantitative [

methodsAll women with newly diagnosed high-risk breast cancer undergoing [

results185 cases were included for analysis: G1 (n = 48), G2 (n = 35), G3 (n = 54) and G4 (n = 48). Significant differences were observed between groups for SUV

conclusionIn our large real-world cohort of high-risk breast cancer patients, quantitative [¹⁸F]FDG PET parameters demonstrate significant associations with the histopathological breast cancer subtypes recommended in the EANM-SNMMI guidelines.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPrognosisRadiopharmaceuticalsReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneTumor BurdenERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Progesterone[18F]FDG PET/CTHigh risk breast cancerPrimary breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID42897655

DOI10.1186/s13058-026-02328-2

PMCPMC13681965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.