Yueqiao Zhang1, Hong Ren1. 1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: Searching in the databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar about comparative study of MG and MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer during 2000-2017. After we screened further, the extracted effective data were calculated by Meta-Disc 1.4 software. RESULTS: we obtained 11 articles. The pooled estimates for sensitivity of MG and MRI were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], [0.72, 0.78]) and 0.92 (95% CI, [0.89, 0.94]) respectively, and for specificity were 0.71 (95% CI, [0.67, 0.74]) and 0.70 (95% CI, [0.66, 0.73]), respectively. Their weighted area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 and 0.93, respectively. CONCLUSION: MRI remains to be a satisfactory method for the diagnosis of breast cancer and should first be considered for patients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: Searching in the databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar about comparative study of MG and MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer during 2000-2017. After we screened further, the extracted effective data were calculated by Meta-Disc 1.4 software. RESULTS: we obtained 11 articles. The pooled estimates for sensitivity of MG and MRI were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], [0.72, 0.78]) and 0.92 (95% CI, [0.89, 0.94]) respectively, and for specificity were 0.71 (95% CI, [0.67, 0.74]) and 0.70 (95% CI, [0.66, 0.73]), respectively. Their weighted area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 and 0.93, respectively. CONCLUSION: MRI remains to be a satisfactory method for the diagnosis of breast cancer and should first be considered for patients.
Authors: Renato de Oliveira Pereira; Larissa Almondes da Luz; Diego Cipriano Chagas; Jefferson Rodrigues Amorim; Elmo de Jesus Nery-Júnior; Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues Alves; Flávio Teixeira de Abreu-Neto; Maria da Conceição Barros Oliveira; Danylo Rafhael Costa Silva; José Maria Soares-Júnior; Benedito Borges da Silva Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: M B I Lobbes; J Hecker; I P L Houben; R Pluymakers; C Jeukens; U C Laji; S Gommers; J E Wildberger; P J Nelemans Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Peter Gibbs; Jeffrey S Reiner; Roberto Lo Gullo; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Nikita Thakur; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Peter Gibbs; Jeffrey S Reiner; Roberto Lo Gullo; Caleb Sooknanan; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Varadan Sevilimedu; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-21