↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Evaluation of Therapeutic Response by FDG-PET–CT in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantitative Evaluation of Therapeutic Response by FDG-PET–CT in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2016.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorothée Goulon, Hatem Necib, Brice Henaff, Caroline Rousseau, Thomas Carlier, Françoise Kraeber-Bodere

Abstract

To assess the therapeutic response for metastatic breast cancer with (18)F-FDG position emission tomography (PET), this retrospective study aims to compare the performance of six different metabolic metrics with PERCIST, PERCIST with optimal thresholds, and an image-based parametric approach. Thirty-six metastatic breast cancer patients underwent 128 PET scans and 123 lesions were identified. In a per-lesion and per-patient analysis, the performance of six metrics: maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SUVpeak, standardized added metabolic activity (SAM), SUVmean, metabolic volume (MV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and a parametric approach (SULTAN) were determined and compared to the gold standard (defined by clinical assessment and biological and conventional imaging according RECIST 1.1). The evaluation was performed using PERCIST thresholds (for per-patient analysis only) and optimal thresholds (determined by the Youden criterion from the receiver operating characteristic curves). In the per-lesion analysis, 210 pairs of lesion evolutions were studied. Using the optimal thresholds, SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, SAM, and TLG were significantly correlated with the gold standard. SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean reached the best sensitivity (91, 88, and 83%, respectively), specificity (93, 95, and 97%, respectively), and negative predictive value (NPV, 90, 88, and 83%, respectively). For the per--patient analysis, 79 pairs of PET were studied. The optimal thresholds compared to the PERCIST threshold did not improve performance for SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean. Only SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, and TLG were correlated with the gold standard. SULTAN also performed equally: 83% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and NPV 86%. This study showed that SUVmax and SUVpeak were the best parameters for PET evaluation of metastatic breast cancer lesions. Parametric imaging is helpful in evaluating serial studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Physics and Astronomy 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 July 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,671
of 7,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,642
of 315,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 315,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.