| Title |
Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing 18F-FDG-PET/MRI
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-018-4102-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julian Kirchner, Johannes Grueneisen, Ole Martin, Mark Oehmigen, Harald H. Quick, Ann-Kathrin Bittner, Oliver Hoffmann, Marc Ingenwerth, Onofrio Antonio Catalano, Philipp Heusch, Christian Buchbender, Michael Forsting, Gerald Antoch, Ken Herrmann, Lale Umutlu |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of a one-step to a two-step staging algorithm utilizing 18F-FDG PET/MRI in breast cancer patients. A total of 38 patients (37 females and one male, mean age 57 ± 10 years; range 31-78 years) with newly diagnosed, histopathologically proven breast cancer were prospectively enrolled in this trial. All PET/MRI examinations were assessed for local tumor burden and metastatic spread in two separate reading sessions: (1) One-step algorithm comprising supine whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI, and (2) Two-step algorithm comprising a dedicated prone 18F-FDG breast PET/MRI and supine whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI. On a patient based analysis the two-step algorithm correctly identified 37 out of 38 patients with breast carcinoma (97%), while five patients were missed by the one-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI algorithm (33/38; 87% correct identification). On a lesion-based analysis 56 breast cancer lesions were detected in the two-step algorithm and 44 breast cancer lesions could be correctly identified in the one-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI (79%), resulting in statistically significant differences between the two algorithms (p = 0.0015). For axillary lymph node evaluation sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was 93%, 95 and 94%, respectively. Furthermore, distant metastases could be detected in seven patients in both algorithms. The results demonstrate the necessity and superiority of a two-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI algorithm, comprising dedicated prone breast imaging and supine whole-body imaging, when compared to the one-step algorithm for local and whole-body staging in breast cancer patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 34% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 43% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#21,153,429
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#2,610
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,081
of 331,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#38
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.