Literature DB >> 25479913

Comparative effectiveness of imaging modalities to determine metastatic breast cancer treatment response.

Christoph I Lee1, Laura S Gold2, Heidi D Nelson3, Roger Chou4, Scott D Ramsey5, Sean D Sullivan6.   

Abstract

We performed a systematic review to address the comparative effectiveness of different imaging modalities in evaluating treatment response among metastatic breast cancer patients. We searched seven multidisciplinary electronic databases for relevant publications (January 2003-December 2013) and performed dual abstraction of details and results for all clinical studies that involved stage IV breast cancer patients and evaluated imaging for detecting treatment response. Among 159 citations reviewed, 17 single-institution, non-randomized, observational studies met our inclusion criteria. Several studies demonstrate that changes in PET/CT standard uptake values are associated with changes in tumor volume as determined by bone scan, MRI, and/or CT. However, no studies evaluated comparative test performance between modalities or determined relationships between imaging findings and subsequent clinical decisions. Evidence for imaging's effectiveness in determining treatment response among metastatic breast cancer patients is limited. More rigorous research is needed to address imaging's value in this patient population.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone scan; Computed tomography; Metastatic breast cancer; Positron emission tomography; Treatment response

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25479913     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.11.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  6 in total

Review 1.  Present and future role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of breast cancer.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Yasuo Miyoshi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Comorbidities and Quality of Life among Breast Cancer Survivors: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Mei R Fu; Deborah Axelrod; Amber A Guth; Charles M Cleland; Caitlin E Ryan; Kristen R Weaver; Jeanna M Qiu; Robin Kleinman; Joan Scagliola; Joseph J Palamar; Gail D'Eramo Melkus
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-06-26

3.  CONSORT-Independent prognostic value of asphericity of pretherapeutic F-18 FDG uptake by primary tumors in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Ji-Hoon Jung; Seung Hyun Son; Do-Hoon Kim; Jeeyeon Lee; Shin Young Jeong; Sang-Woo Lee; Ho Yong Park; Jaetae Lee; Byeong-Cheol Ahn
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Diffusion-weighted imaging in identifying breast cancer pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei Chu; Weiwei Jin; Daihong Liu; Jian Wang; Chengjun Geng; Lihua Chen; Xuequan Huang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-12-11

5.  18F-FDG PET/CT for the early prediction of the response rate and survival of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Feng-Chun Zhang; Hai-Yan Xu; Jian-Jun Liu; Yuan-Fan Xu; Bin Chen; Yi-Jin Yang; Ning-Ning Yan; Shao-Li Song; Yu-Mei Lin; Ying-Chun Xu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  A blood screening test for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Sid E O'Bryant; Melissa Edwards; Leigh Johnson; James Hall; Alcibiades E Villarreal; Gabrielle B Britton; Mary Quiceno; C Munro Cullum; Neill R Graff-Radford
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement (Amst)       Date:  2016-06-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.