Literature DB >> 18474876

Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.

Nehmat Houssami1, Stefano Ciatto, Petra Macaskill, Sarah J Lord, Ruth M Warren, J Michael Dixon, Les Irwig.   

Abstract

PURPOSE We review the evidence on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging the affected breast to determine its accuracy and impact on treatment. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI in detection of multifocal (MF) and/or multicentric (MC) cancer not identified on conventional imaging. We estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, positive predictive value (PPV), true-positive (TP) to false positive (FP) ratio, and examined their variability according to quality criteria. Pooled estimates of the proportion of women whose surgery was altered were calculated. Results Data from 19 studies showed MRI detects additional disease in 16% of women with breast cancer (N = 2,610). MRI incremental accuracy differed according to the reference standard (RS; P = .016) decreasing from 99% to 86% as the quality of the RS increased. Summary PPV was 66% (95% CI, 52% to 77%) and TP:FP ratio was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.09 to 3.34). Conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to mastectomy was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.9 to 11.3), from WLE to more extensive surgery was 11.3% in MF/MC disease (95% CI, 6.8 to 18.3). Due to MRI-detected lesions (in women who did not have additional malignancy on histology) conversion from WLE to mastectomy was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.6) and from WLE to more extensive surgery was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 9.5). CONCLUSION MRI staging causes more extensive breast surgery in an important proportion of women by identifying additional cancer, however there is a need to reduce FP MRI detection. Randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical value of detecting additional disease which changes surgical treatment in women with apparently localized breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18474876     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  179 in total

1.  Incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging for breast surgery planning.

Authors:  Sibel Ozkan Gurdal; Beyza Ozcinar; Munire Kayahan; Abdullah Igci; Mehtap Tunaci; Vahit Ozmen; Gulden Acunas; Ekrem Yavuz; Mustafa Kecer; Mahmut Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Design-related bias in estimates of accuracy when comparing imaging tests: examples from breast imaging research.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Vacuum-assisted biopsies under MR guidance: results of 72 procedures.

Authors:  C Malhaire; C El Khoury; F Thibault; A Athanasiou; P Petrow; L Ollivier; A Tardivon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Utility of second-look ultrasound in the management of incidental enhancing lesions detected by breast MR imaging.

Authors:  G Carbognin; V Girardi; C Calciolari; A Brandalise; F Bonetti; A Russo; R Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience?

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Georg J Wengert; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich; Klaus Preidler; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Impact of parametric imaging on contrast-enhanced ultrasound of breast cancer.

Authors:  Aya Noro; Takashi Nakamura; Toshiko Hirai; Masayo Haga; Toyoki Kobayashi; Akinobu Hayashi; Yuji Kozuka; Tokiko Nakai; Toru Ogura; Tomoko Ogawa
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 1.314

8.  MRI-guided core needle biopsy of the breast: Radiology-pathology correlation and impact on clinical management.

Authors:  Amy J Lilly; Meredith Johnson; Cherie M Kuzmiak; David W Ollila; Siobhan M O'Connor; Johann D Hertel; Benjamin C Calhoun
Journal:  Ann Diagn Pathol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 2.090

9.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mary C Mahoney; Mitchell D Schnall; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.