MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract A014: Prognostic value of tumor asphericity on initial staging 18F- FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer

2025· article· en· W4417201105 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerUnivariateProportional hazards modelMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisBreast carcinomaBreast tumorMultivariate statisticsStatistical software

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Back ground: Tumor ASP (aspherecity) indicates a more irregular tumor shape and is a quantitative parameter indicating metabolic heterogeneity in tumor microenvironment. A higher degree of tumor ASP is associated with more aggressive behavior and confers a poorer prognosis. Aim: To evaluate role of tumor ASP on initial 18F-FDG PET/CT scans as a prognostic marker in patients with breast IDC. Materials and methods: Clinical and histopathological characterstics of 87 treatment naïve breast carcinoma patients (mean age 29.4 years; range, 28-83 years) and their 18F-FDG PET/CT scans performed between January 2017 and October 2023 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Calculations: Primary tumor SULpeak, MTV and TLG were calculated using MetaVol (release 2022) and LIFEx software (version 7.6). For calculation of metabolic volumes, a fixed threshold of SUVmax of 2.5 was used. Tumor apshericity was calculated using the formula ASP % = 100 x (∛H-1), where H= (1S3)/(36πV2) where S and V are surface area and MTV of tumor respectively. Statistical analysis: All data analysis was carried out using Medcalc (version 23.0.9, MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium) and Minitab (version 22.1.1; Minitab LLC) statistical softwares. Cox univariate and multivariate regression analysis with forward selection were used to analyze relationship between independent variables and PFS. Kaplan - Meier curves were generated for PFS and difference in survival between groups was assessed using log-rank test. All P values were 2-sided and values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Mean follow-up time was 62 months for entire study sample. PFS rate among 87 patients was 81.6%. Whereas mean time period for regional or metastatic recurrence was 22 months. Cox univariate analysis revealed that primary tumor size (HR = 0.86; p value- 0.05), lymph node metastasis (HR = 14.6; p value = 0.224), negative hormonal receptor (ER, PR) status (HR =6.4; p = 0.038), HER2/neu negative status (HR =1.46; p = 0.947), SULpeak > 3.9 (HR =6.8; p value = 0.094) MTV > 6.8 mL (HR =5.8; p value = 0.046), TLG > 26.4g (HR =7.1; p value = 0.040) and ASP >19.8% (HR =15.6; p<0.0002) adversly influenced PFS. Cox multivariate analysis revealed lymph node metastasis (HR=19.4; P = 0.008) followed by ASP >19.8 (HR=17.3; P = 0.028.), and negative hormonal receptor status ((HR=14.2; P = 0.003) to be strong independent predictors of PFS. Conclusions: A pre-therapeutic tumor ASP of >19.4%, could identify breast IDC patients with reduced PFS. Tumor ASP fared better as an indicator of PFS compared to many clinico-pathological and other FGD PET/CT parameters and hence useful for prognostic stratification. Citation Format: Dr Nitin Gupta. Prognostic value of tumor asphericity on initial staging 18F- FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: The Rise in Early-Onset Cancers—Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities; 2025 Dec 10-13; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(23_Suppl):Abstract nr A014.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→