<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Naghavi-Behzad M</submitter><funding>NCI NIH HHS</funding><funding>This study was supported by the Centre for Personalized Response Monitoring in Oncology (Odense University Hospital, Denmark) and the University of Southern Denmark.</funding><pagination>1271-1279</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9042860</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>126(9)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>We compared overall survival for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients monitored with CE-CT, FDG-PET/CT or a combination of them in an observational setting.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Patients with biopsy-verified (recurrent or de novo) MBC (n = 300) who were treated at Odense university hospital (Denmark) and response monitored with FDG-PET/CT (n = 83), CE-CT (n = 144), or a combination of these (n = 73) were followed until 2019. Survival was compared between the scan groups, and were adjusted for clinico-histopathological variables representing potential confounders in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The study groups were mostly comparable regarding baseline characteristics, but liver metastases were reported more frequently in CE-CT group (38.9%) tha</pubmed_abstract><journal>British journal of cancer</journal><pubmed_title>Response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of survival times between FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9042860</pmcid><funding_grant_id>P30 CA008748</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Olsen MMB</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Asmussen JT</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vach W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hildebrandt MG</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kodahl AR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kidholm K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vester RM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Oltmann H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gerke O</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Weber W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vogsen M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Naghavi-Behzad M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Braad PE</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of survival times between FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>We compared overall survival for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients monitored with CE-CT, FDG-PET/CT or a combination of them in an observational setting.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Patients with biopsy-verified (recurrent or de novo) MBC (n = 300) who were treated at Odense university hospital (Denmark) and response monitored with FDG-PET/CT (n = 83), CE-CT (n = 144), or a combination of these (n = 73) were followed until 2019. Survival was compared between the scan groups, and were adjusted for clinico-histopathological variables representing potential confounders in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The study groups were mostly comparable regarding baseline characteristics, but liver metastases were reported more frequently in CE-CT group (38.9%) tha</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 May</publication><modification>2025-04-21T21:18:52.629Z</modification><creation>2025-04-05T18:19:21.224Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9042860</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35013575</pubmed><doi>10.1038/s41416-021-01654-w</doi></cross_references></HashMap>