R Geach1, L I Jones2, S A Harding1, A Marshall3, S Taylor-Phillips3, S McKeown-Keegan1, J A Dunn3. 1. North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. 2. North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. Electronic address: Lyn.Jones@nbt.nhs.uk. 3. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To synthesise evidence comparing abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (abMRI) to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) in breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in multiple databases. Cohort studies without enrichment, presenting accuracy data of abMRI in screening, for any level of risk (population, moderate, high risk) were included. Level of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses (bivariate random effects model) were performed for abMRI, with fpMRI and histology from fpMRI-positive cases as reference standard, and with follow-up to symptomatic detection added to the fpMRI. The review also covers evidence comparing abMRI with mammographic techniques. RESULTS: The title and abstract review retrieved 23 articles. Five studies (six articles) were included (2,763 women, 3,251 screening rounds). GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low because the reference standard was interpreted with knowledge of the index test and biopsy was not obtained for all abMRI positives. The overall sensitivity for abMRI, with fpMRI (and histology for fpMRI positives) as reference standard, was 94.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85.5-98.2) and specificity as 94.6% (95% CI: 91.5-96.6). Three studies (1,450 women, 1,613 screening rounds) presented follow-up data, enabling comparison between abMRI and fpMRI. Sensitivities and specificities for abMRI did not differ significantly from those for fpMRI (p=0.83 and p=0.37, respectively). CONCLUSION: A very low level of evidence suggests abMRI could be accurate for breast cancer screening. Research is required, with follow-up to interval cancer, to determine the effect its use could have on clinical outcome.
AIM: To synthesise evidence comparing abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (abMRI) to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) in breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in multiple databases. Cohort studies without enrichment, presenting accuracy data of abMRI in screening, for any level of risk (population, moderate, high risk) were included. Level of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses (bivariate random effects model) were performed for abMRI, with fpMRI and histology from fpMRI-positive cases as reference standard, and with follow-up to symptomatic detection added to the fpMRI. The review also covers evidence comparing abMRI with mammographic techniques. RESULTS: The title and abstract review retrieved 23 articles. Five studies (six articles) were included (2,763 women, 3,251 screening rounds). GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low because the reference standard was interpreted with knowledge of the index test and biopsy was not obtained for all abMRI positives. The overall sensitivity for abMRI, with fpMRI (and histology for fpMRI positives) as reference standard, was 94.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85.5-98.2) and specificity as 94.6% (95% CI: 91.5-96.6). Three studies (1,450 women, 1,613 screening rounds) presented follow-up data, enabling comparison between abMRI and fpMRI. Sensitivities and specificities for abMRI did not differ significantly from those for fpMRI (p=0.83 and p=0.37, respectively). CONCLUSION: A very low level of evidence suggests abMRI could be accurate for breast cancer screening. Research is required, with follow-up to interval cancer, to determine the effect its use could have on clinical outcome.
Authors: Lyn I Jones; Andrea Marshall; Premkumar Elangovan; Rebecca Geach; Sadie McKeown-Keegan; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sam A Harding; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Mark Halling-Brown; Christopher Foy; Elizabeth O'Flynn; Hesam Ghiasvand; Claire Hulme; Janet A Dunn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 8.408
Authors: Ashley M Mendez; Lauren K Fang; Claire H Meriwether; Summer J Batasin; Stéphane Loubrie; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 5.738