Cameron B Haas1,2, Larissa Nekhlyudov3, Janie M Lee4, Sara H Javid4, Mary Bush5, Dianne Johnson5, Timothy Gleason6, Cary Kaufman7, Jennifer Specht4, Sean Stitham8, Karen J Wernli5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Cameron.b.haas@kp.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave. Ste 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. Cameron.b.haas@kp.org. 3. Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave. Ste 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. 6. Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Bellingham Regional Beast Center, Bellingham, WA, USA. 8. Kaiser Permanente Washington, Bellevue, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000-2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9-15; I2 = 10%), recall rate (PI 5-31%; I2 = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58-95%; I2 = 47%), specificity (PI 76-97%; I2 = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16-40%; I2 = 44%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.
PURPOSE:Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000-2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9-15; I2 = 10%), recall rate (PI 5-31%; I2 = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58-95%; I2 = 47%), specificity (PI 76-97%; I2 = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16-40%; I2 = 44%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast imaging; Diagnostic performance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Systematic review
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee; Constance Lehman; Ellen S O'Meara; Natasha K Stout; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Martha B Mainiero; Ana Lourenco; Mary C Mahoney; Mary S Newell; Lisa Bailey; Lora D Barke; Carl D'Orsi; Jennifer A Harvey; Mary K Hayes; Phan Tuong Huynh; Peter M Jokich; Su-Ju Lee; Constance D Lehman; David A Mankoff; Joshua A Nepute; Samir B Patel; Handel E Reynolds; M Linda Sutherland; Bruce G Haffty Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Carol H Lee; D David Dershaw; Daniel Kopans; Phil Evans; Barbara Monsees; Debra Monticciolo; R James Brenner; Lawrence Bassett; Wendie Berg; Stephen Feig; Edward Hendrick; Ellen Mendelson; Carl D'Orsi; Edward Sickles; Linda Warren Burhenne Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Susan D Brandzel; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Louise M Henderson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 29.146