Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 394

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Fluoroestradiol Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Predicts Response to Endocrine Treatment in Breast Cancer

Linden, Hannah M., Stekhova, Svetlana A., Link, Jeanne M., Gralow, Julie R., Livingston, Robert B., Ellis, Georgiana K., Petra, Philip H., Peterson, Lanell M., Schubert, Erin K., Dunnwald, Lisa K., Krohn, Kenneth A., Mankoff, David A.·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: In breast cancer, [18 F]fluoroestradiol (FES) positron emission tomography (PET) correlates with estrogen receptors (ER) expression and predicts response to tamoxifen. We tested the ability of FES-PET imaging to predict response to salvage hormonal treatment in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients, predominantly treated with aromatase inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Initial FES uptake measurements in 47 patients with ER-positive tumors were correlated with subsequent tumor response to 6 months of hormonal treatment. Most patients had bone dominant disease and prior tamoxifen exposure. Response was compared to initial FES-PET uptake, measured qualitatively and quantitatively using standardized uptake value (SUV) and estradiol-binding flux. Results: Eleven of 47 patients (23%) had an objective response. While no patients with absent FES uptake had a response to treatment, the association between qualitative FES-PET results and response was not significant (P = .14). However, quantitative FES uptake and response were significantly associated; zero of 15 patients with initial SUV less than 1.5 responded to hormonal therapy, compared with 11 of 32 patients (34%) with SUV higher than 1.5 (P < .01). In the subset of patients whose tumors did not overexpress HER2/neu, 11 of 24 patients (46%) with SUV higher than 1.5 responded. Conclusion: Quantitative FES-PET can predict response to hormonal therapy and may help guide treatment selection. Treatment selection using quantitative FES-PET in our patient series would have increased the rate of response from 23% to 34% overall, and from 29% to 46% in the subset of patients lacking HER2/neu overexpression. A multi-institutional collaborative trial would permit definitive assessment of the value of FES-PET for therapeutic decision making.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2005.04.3810

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 394

Metadata

Authors
Linden, H. M., Stekhova, S. A., Link, J. M., Gralow, J. R., Livingston, R. B., Ellis, G. K., Petra, P. H., Peterson, L. M., Schubert, E. K., Dunnwald, L. K., Krohn, K. A., & Mankoff, D. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-06-20
Volume
24
Issue
18
Pages
2793-2799
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2095627442
Cited by
394
References
2
FWCI
22.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative Fluoroestradiol Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Predicts Response to Endocrine Treatment in Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.04.3810
The paper
Linden, H. M., Stekhova, S. A., Link, J. M., Gralow, J. R., Livingston, R. B., Ellis, G. K., Petra, P. H., Peterson, L. M., Schubert, E. K., Dunnwald, L. K., Krohn, K. A., & Mankoff, D. A. (2006). Quantitative Fluoroestradiol Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Predicts Response to Endocrine Treatment in Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.3810

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.