Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, Mafra A, Singh D, Laversanne M, et al. Current and future burden of breast cancer: global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast. 2022;66:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.08.010.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Azamjah N, Soltan-Zadeh Y, Zayeri F. Global Trend of breast Cancer mortality rate: a 25-Year study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019;20:2015–20. https://doi.org/10.31557/apjcp.2019.20.7.2015.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Spring LM, Fell G, Arfe A, Sharma C, Greenup R, Reynolds KL, et al. Pathologic Complete Response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast Cancer recurrence and survival: a Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:2838–48. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-19-3492.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Haque W, Verma V, Hatch S, Suzanne Klimberg V, Brian Butler E, Teh BS. Response rates and pathologic complete response by breast cancer molecular subtype following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170:559–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4801-3.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brandão MMS, Lopes- L, Fontes F, Araújo N, Dias T, et al. Healthcare use and costs in early breast cancer: a patient-level data analysis according to stage and breast cancer subtype. ESMO Open. 2020;5:e000984. https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000984.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Oliveira C, Oliveira F, Vaz SC, Marques HP, Cardoso F. Prediction of pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using baseline FDG PET heterogeneity features in breast cancer. Br J Radiol. 2023;96:20220655. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20220655.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827a8d17.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Granzier RWY, van Nijnatten TJA, Woodruff HC, Smidt ML, Lobbes MBI. Exploring breast cancer response prediction to neoadjuvant systemic therapy using MRI-based radiomics: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2019;121:108736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108736.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ashraf A, Gaonkar B, Mies C, DeMichele A, Rosen M, Davatzikos C, Kontos D. Breast DCE-MRI kinetic heterogeneity tumor markers: Preliminary associations with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response. Translational Oncol. 2015;8:154–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2015.03.005.

Article  Google Scholar 

Paydary K, Seraj SM, Zadeh MZ, Emamzadehfard S, Shamchi SP, Gholami S, et al. The evolving role of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of breast Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2019;21:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1181-3.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Soussan M, Orlhac F, Boubaya M, Zelek L, Ziol M, Eder V, Buvat I. Relationship between Tumor Heterogeneity measured on FDG-PET/CT and pathological prognostic factors in invasive breast Cancer. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e94017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094017.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti J-L, Porcher R, Espié M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1640-9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lee MI, Jung YJ, Kim DI, Lee S, Jung CS, Kang SK, et al. Prognostic value of SUVmax in breast cancer and comparative analyses of molecular subtypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med (Baltim). 2021;100:e26745. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000026745.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Tatar G, Özkul Ö, Alçin G. The value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in the Evaluation of Interim Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in locally advanced breast Cancer. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2022;31:123–9. https://doi.org/10.4274/mirt.galenos.2022.44154.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Yang L, Chang J, He X, Peng M, Zhang Y, Wu T, et al. PET/CT-based radiomics analysis may help to predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcomes in breast cancer. Front Oncol. 2022;12:849626. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.849626.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Molina-García D, García-Vicente AM, Pérez-Beteta J, Amo-Salas M, Martínez-González A, Tello-Galán MJ, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT by textural analysis in breast cancer as a predictive and prognostic subrogate. Ann Nucl Med. 2018;32:379–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1253-0.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Li P, Wang X, Xu C, Liu C, Zheng C, Fulham MJ, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT radiomic predictors of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1116–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04684-3.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ha S, Park S, Bang JI, Kim EK, Lee HY. Metabolic radiomics for pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT to characterize locally advanced breast Cancer: histopathologic characteristics, response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, and prognosis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01524-7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Constantino CS, Oliveira FPM, Silva M, Oliveira C, Castanheira JC, Silva Â, et al. Are lesion features reproducible between (18)F-FDG PET/CT images when acquired on analog or digital PET/CT scanners? Eur Radiol. 2021;31:3071–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07390-8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zwanenburg A. Radiomics in nuclear medicine: robustness, reproducibility, standardization, and how to avoid data analysis traps and replication crisis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:2638–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04391-8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1012–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2010.498437.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Allison KH, Harvey BE, McShane LM, Dowsett M. HER2 testing in breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline focused Update Summary. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14:437–41. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.18.00206.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M, McKernin SE, Carey LA, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1346–66. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.02309.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Prat A, Cheang MC, Martín M, Parker JS, Carrasco E, Caballero R, et al. Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:203–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.43.4134.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Breast Tumours/edited. by WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. 5th ed; 2019.

Soliman NA, Yussif SM. Ki-67 as a prognostic marker according to breast cancer molecular subtype. Cancer Biol Med. 2016;13:496–504. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0066.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1674. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz189.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kaalep A, Sera T, Oyen W, Krause BJ, Chiti A, Liu Y, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:412–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7.