Literature DB >> 25895597

1H-MRS evaluation of breast lesions by using total choline signal-to-noise ratio as an indicator of malignancy: a meta-analysis.

Xin Wang1, Xiang Jiang Wang, Hui Sheng Song, Long Hua Chen.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the use of total choline signal-to-noise ratio (tCho SNR) criteria in MRS studies for benign/malignant discrimination of focal breast lesions. We conducted (1) a meta-analysis based on 10 studies including 480 malignant breast lesions and 312 benign breast lesions and (2) a subgroup meta-analysis of tCho SNR ≥ 2 as cutoff for malignancy based on 7 studies including 371 malignant breast lesions and 239 benign breast lesions. (1) The pooled sensitivity and specificity of proton MRS with tCho SNR were 0.74 (95 % CI 0.69-0.77) and 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71-0.81), respectively. The PLR and NLR were 3.67 (95 % CI 2.30-5.83) and 0.25 (95 % CI 0.14-0.42), respectively. From the fitted SROC, the AUC and Q* index were 0.89 and 0.82. Publication bias was present (t = 2.46, P = 0.039). (2) Meta-regression analysis suggested that neither threshold effect nor evaluated covariates including strength of field, pulse sequence, TR and TE were sources of heterogeneity (all P value >0.05). (3) Subgroup meta-analysis: The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 and 0.72, respectively. The PLR and NLR were 3.49 and 0.20, respectively. The AUC and Q* index were 0.92 and 0.85. The use of tCho SNR criteria in MRS studies was helpful for differentiation between malignant and benign breast lesions. However, pooled diagnostic measures might be overestimated due to publication bias. A tCho SNR ≥ 2 as cutoff for malignancy resulted in higher diagnostic accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25895597     DOI: 10.1007/s12032-015-0603-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Oncol        ISSN: 1357-0560            Impact factor:   3.064


  33 in total

1.  Forest plots: data summaries at a glance.

Authors:  Julie Yeh; Frank D'Amico
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 0.493

2.  Forest and funnel plots illustrated the calibration of a prognostic model: a descriptive study.

Authors:  Kwok Ming Ho
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-02-26       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the breast: current status.

Authors:  Patrick J Bolan
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 2.266

4.  1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy?

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Tozaki; Eisuke Fukuma
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Differential diagnosis between hepatic metastases and benign focal lesions using DWI with parallel acquisition technique: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chenggang Wei; Jieying Tan; Li Xu; Liu Juan; Si Wei Zhang; Lu Wang; Qun Wang
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-10-16

6.  Differential diagnosis between malignant and benign breast lesions using single-voxel proton MRS: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dongzhi Cen; Li Xu
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Improved diagnostic accuracy in differentiating malignant and benign lesions using single-voxel proton MRS of the breast at 3 T MRI.

Authors:  S Suppiah; K Rahmat; M N Mohd-Shah; C A Azlan; L K Tan; Y F A Aziz; A Vijayananthan; A L Wui; C H Yip
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD).

Authors:  Michel P Coleman; Manuela Quaresma; Franco Berrino; Jean-Michel Lutz; Roberta De Angelis; Riccardo Capocaccia; Paolo Baili; Bernard Rachet; Gemma Gatta; Timo Hakulinen; Andrea Micheli; Milena Sant; Hannah K Weir; J Mark Elwood; Hideaki Tsukuma; Sergio Koifman; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Silvia Francisci; Mariano Santaquilani; Arduino Verdecchia; Hans H Storm; John L Young
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 9.  Breast lesions: diagnosis by using proton MR spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3.0 T--systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Effects of contrast agent and outer volume saturation bands on water suppression and shimming of hepatic single-volume proton MR spectroscopy at 3.0T.

Authors:  Li Xu; Yan Huang; Xian Liu; Bo Liu
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-11-20
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Clinical Breast MR Using MRS or DWI: Who Is the Winner?

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Luca Alessandro Carbonaro; Stefania Montemezzi; Carlo Cavedon; Rubina Manuela Trimboli
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 2.  Breast Tissue Metabolism by Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.

Authors:  Naranamangalam R Jagannathan; Uma Sharma
Journal:  Metabolites       Date:  2017-06-07

Review 3.  The use of hyperpolarised 13C-MRI in clinical body imaging to probe cancer metabolism.

Authors:  Ramona Woitek; Ferdia A Gallagher
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MR Spectroscopic Methods in Understanding Breast Cancer Biology and Metabolism.

Authors:  Uma Sharma; Naranamangalam R Jagannathan
Journal:  Metabolites       Date:  2022-03-27

Review 5.  Imaging biomarkers for evaluating tumor response: RECIST and beyond.

Authors:  Ching-Chung Ko; Lee-Ren Yeh; Yu-Ting Kuo; Jeon-Hor Chen
Journal:  Biomark Res       Date:  2021-07-02

Review 6.  In vivo MR spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Uma Sharma; Naranamangalam Raghunathan Jagannathan
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-07-02
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.