Na Hu1, Jinghao Zhao1, Yong Li1, Quanshui Fu1, Linwei Zhao1, Hong Chen1, Wei Qin2, Guoqing Yang3. 1. Department of Radiology, Suining Central Hospital, Suining, 629000, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Suining Central Hospital, Suining, 629000, Sichuan, China. qinwei699@sina.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Suining Central Hospital, Suining, 629000, Sichuan, China. yangguoqing688@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging use to predict breast cancer attracts many searchers to draw a possible relationship. However, the results of their relationships were conflicting. This meta-analysis was performed to assess breast cancer frequency associations with background parenchymal enhancement. METHODS: A systematic literature search up to January 2020 was performed to detect studies recording associations between breast cancer frequency and background parenchymal enhancement. We found thirteen studies including 13,788 women at the start with 4046 breast cancer. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between breast cancer frequency and background parenchymal enhancement by the dichotomous technique with a random or fixed-effect model. RESULTS: Women with minimal or mild background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging did not have any risk of breast cancer compared to control women (OR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.54-2.67). However, high background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging (OR, 2.66; 95% CI 1.36-5.19) and moderate (OR, 2.51; 95% CI 1.49-4.21) was associated with a significantly higher rate of breast cancer frequency compared to control women. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that the women with high and moderate background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging have higher risks, up to 2.66 fold, of breast cancer. We suggest that women with high or moderate background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging to be scheduled for more frequent follow-up and screening for breast cancer to avoid any complications.
BACKGROUND: The background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging use to predict breast cancer attracts many searchers to draw a possible relationship. However, the results of their relationships were conflicting. This meta-analysis was performed to assess breast cancer frequency associations with background parenchymal enhancement. METHODS: A systematic literature search up to January 2020 was performed to detect studies recording associations between breast cancer frequency and background parenchymal enhancement. We found thirteen studies including 13,788 women at the start with 4046 breast cancer. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between breast cancer frequency and background parenchymal enhancement by the dichotomous technique with a random or fixed-effect model. RESULTS: Women with minimal or mild background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging did not have any risk of breast cancer compared to control women (OR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.54-2.67). However, high background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging (OR, 2.66; 95% CI 1.36-5.19) and moderate (OR, 2.51; 95% CI 1.49-4.21) was associated with a significantly higher rate of breast cancer frequency compared to control women. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that the women with high and moderate background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging have higher risks, up to 2.66 fold, of breast cancer. We suggest that women with high or moderate background parenchymal enhancement at breast magnetic resonance imaging to be scheduled for more frequent follow-up and screening for breast cancer to avoid any complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Background parenchymal enhancement; Breast cancer; Breast magnetic resonance imaging; Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Ana Paula Klautau Leite; Steven H Baete; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Valencia King; Jennifer D Brooks; Jonine L Bernstein; Anne S Reiner; Malcolm C Pike; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bas H M van der Velden; Ivan Dmitriev; Claudette E Loo; Ruud M Pijnappel; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dorothy A Sippo; Geoffrey M Rutledge; Kristine S Burk; Sarah F Mercaldo; Brian N Dontchos; Christine E Edmonds; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brian N Dontchos; Habib Rahbar; Savannah C Partridge; Larissa A Korde; Diana L Lam; John R Scheel; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jill A Hayden; Danielle A van der Windt; Jennifer L Cartwright; Pierre Côté; Claire Bombardier Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Elizabeth J Sutton; Donna D'Alessio; Katherine Gallagher; Nicole Saphier; Joseph Stember; Danny F Martinez; Elizabeth A Morris; Katja Pinker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 5.119