MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518058354 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000568

Prospective comparison of whole-body bone SPECT and sodium 18F-fluoride PET in the detection of bone metastases from breast cancer

2016· article· en· W2518058354 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gad Abikhzer, Saher Srour, Georgeta Fried, Karen Drumea, Ela Kozlener, Alex Frenkel, Ora Israel, Ignac Fogelman, Olga Kagna

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli FoundationIsrael Cancer Association
KeywordsNuclear medicineMedicineBreast cancerBone scintigraphyPET-CTPositron emission tomographyRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The superiority of sodium F-fluoride PET (F-PET)/computed tomography (CT) over planar and single field-of-view single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) bone scintigraphy with Tc-methylene diphosphonate in bone metastases detection has been established. The present study prospectively compares whole-body Tc-methylene diphosphonate SPECT (WB-SPECT) and F-PET performance indices for the detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 41 pairs of studies in female breast cancer patients (average age 58 years, range 30-75) were included. Half-time WB-SPECT and F-PET/CT were performed at a 4-day average interval (range 0-36 days), with subsequent fusion of CT to WB-SPECT. Two readers independently interpreted the studies, with differences resolved by consensus. Composite gold standard included the CT component of the F-PET/CT study with follow-up CT, MRI, F-fluoro-deoxyglucose-PET/CT, and bone scans. RESULTS: On patient-based analysis, metastases were diagnosed in 21 patients, with 19 patients detected by WB-SPECT and 21 with F-PET, the latter being the only modality to detect a single metastasis in two patients. The sensitivity of WB-SPECT and F-PET was 90 and 100% (P=NS), and the specificity were 95 and 85%, respectively (P=NS). On lesion-based analysis, 284 total sites of increased uptake were found. WB-SPECT detected 171/284 (60%) and F-PET 268/284 (94%) lesions, with good interobserver agreement for WB-SPECT (κ=0.679) and excellent agreement for F-PET (κ=0.798). The final analysis classified 204 lesions as benign and 80 as metastases. WB-SPECT identified 121 benign and 50 malignant sites compared with 192 and 76, respectively, for F-PET. WB-SPECT and F-PET had a sensitivity of 63 vs. 95%, P-value of less than 0.001, and a specificity of 97 vs. 96% (P=NS), respectively, on lesion-based analysis. CONCLUSION: F-PET had higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of bone metastases from breast cancer compared with WB-SPECT, showing a statistically significant 32% increase on lesion-based analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207