OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting additional lesions and contralateral cancer not identified using conventional imaging in primary breast cancer. METHODS: We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate diagnostic accuracy indices and the impact of MRI on surgical management. RESULTS: Fifty articles were included (n = 10,811 women). MRI detected additional disease in 20% of women and in the contralateral breast in 5.5%. The summary PPV of ipsilateral additional disease was 67% (95% CI 59-74%). For contralateral breast, the PPV was 37% (95% CI 27-47%). For ipsilateral lesions, MRI devices ≥1.5 Tesla (T) had higher PPV (75%, 95% CI 64-83%) than MRI with <1.5 T (59%, 95% CI 53-71%). Similar results were found for contralateral cancer, PPV 40% (95% CI 29-53%) and 19% (95% CI 8-39%) for high- and low-field equipments, respectively. True positive MRI findings prompted conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to more extensive surgery in 12.8% of women while in 6.3% this conversion was inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: MRI shows high diagnostic accuracy, but MRI findings should be pathologically verified because of the high FP rate. Future research on this emerging technology should focus on patient outcome as the primary end-point.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting additional lesions and contralateral cancer not identified using conventional imaging in primary breast cancer. METHODS: We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate diagnostic accuracy indices and the impact of MRI on surgical management. RESULTS: Fifty articles were included (n = 10,811 women). MRI detected additional disease in 20% of women and in the contralateral breast in 5.5%. The summary PPV of ipsilateral additional disease was 67% (95% CI 59-74%). For contralateral breast, the PPV was 37% (95% CI 27-47%). For ipsilateral lesions, MRI devices ≥1.5 Tesla (T) had higher PPV (75%, 95% CI 64-83%) than MRI with <1.5 T (59%, 95% CI 53-71%). Similar results were found for contralateral cancer, PPV 40% (95% CI 29-53%) and 19% (95% CI 8-39%) for high- and low-field equipments, respectively. True positive MRI findings prompted conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to more extensive surgery in 12.8% of women while in 6.3% this conversion was inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: MRI shows high diagnostic accuracy, but MRI findings should be pathologically verified because of the high FP rate. Future research on this emerging technology should focus on patient outcome as the primary end-point.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; Johannes L Peterse; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Albert P E Besnard; Sara H Muller; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Cameron D Adkisson; Laura A Vallow; Kristin Kowalchik; Rebecca McNeil; Stephanie Hines; Elizabeth Deperi; Alvaro Moreno; Vivek Roy; Edith A Perez; Sarah A McLaughlin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: K Schelfout; M Van Goethem; E Kersschot; C Colpaert; A M Schelfhout; P Leyman; I Verslegers; I Biltjes; J Van Den Haute; J P Gillardin; W Tjalma; J C Van Der Auwera; P Buytaert; A De Schepper Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S G Orel; M D Schnall; C M Powell; M G Hochman; L J Solin; B L Fowble; M H Torosian; E F Rosato Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Boetes; R D Mus; R Holland; J O Barentsz; S P Strijk; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; S H Ruys Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julie Wecsler; Young Ju Jeong; Akshara S Raghavendra; Wendy J Mack; Debasish Tripathy; Mary W Yamashita; Pulin A Sheth; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Christy A Russell; Heather MacDonald; Stephen F Sener; Julie E Lang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-26 Impact factor: 3.454
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
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Daniel S Hippe; Ahmed Alaa; Safia H Cheeney; Mihaela van der Schaar; Savannah C Partridge; Christoph I Lee Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-07-10
Authors: Gisela Lg Menezes; Floor M Knuttel; Bertine L Stehouwer; Ruud M Pijnappel; Maurice Aaj van den Bosch Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-05-10