Literature DB >> 35768442

The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting the size of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ricardo Roque1, Mariana Robalo Cordeiro2,3,4, Mónica Armas5, Francisco Caramelo3, Filipe Caseiro-Alves3,6, Margarida Figueiredo-Dias2,3,4.   

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a putative precursor of invasive breast cancer and MRI is considered the most sensitive imaging technique for its detection. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of MRI measuring the pure DCIS size, against pathology, to better understand the role of MRI in the management of this intraductal neoplasm.Potentially eligible studies in MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar, up to January 2021 were considered, and a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the published protocol (Prospero-CRD42021232228) was performed. Outcomes of mean differences and accuracy rates were analysed using IBM® SPSS® v26 and random-effect models in platform R v3.3.Twenty-two cross-sectional studies were selected and 15 proceeded to meta-analysis. MRI accurately predicted 55% of the tumours' sizes and, according to Bland-Altman plots, concordance between MRI and pathology was greater for smaller tumours. In the meta-analysis, difference of the means between MRI and pathology was 3.85 mm (CI 95% [-0.92;8.60]) with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 96.7%). Subgroup analysis showed similar results for sizes between different MRI fields, temporal resolution, slice thickness and acquisition times, but lower heterogeneity in studies using 3-T MRI (I2 = 57.2%). Results were concordant with low risk of bias studies (2.46, CI 95% [0.57-4.36]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).Therefore, MRI is shown to be an accurate method in pure DCIS size assessment. Once the best MRI protocol is established, evaluation of the impact of pure DCIS size in predicting treatment outcomes will contribute to clarifying current issues related to intraductal breast carcinoma.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35768442      PMCID: PMC9243148          DOI: 10.1038/s41523-022-00441-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer        ISSN: 2374-4677


  35 in total

1.  Which factors influence MRI-pathology concordance of tumour size measurements in breast cancer?

Authors:  M Rominger; D Berg; T Frauenfelder; A Ramaswamy; N Timmesfeld
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Breast MRI: State of the Art.

Authors:  Ritse M Mann; Nariya Cho; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-26

Review 4.  Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  A Fancellu; R M Turner; J M Dixon; A Pinna; P Cottu; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the imaging and histopathological features.

Authors:  H S Mun; H J Shin; H H Kim; J H Cha; H Kim
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: update 2019.

Authors:  Sunil S Badve; Yesim Gökmen-Polar
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 5.306

8.  Accuracy of 3 T versus 1.5 T breast MRI for pre-operative assessment of extent of disease in newly diagnosed DCIS.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Wendy B DeMartini; Amie Y Lee; Savannah C Partridge; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Preoperative tumor size measurement in breast cancer patients: which threshold is appropriate on computer-aided detection for breast MRI?

Authors:  Sung Eun Song; Bo Kyoung Seo; Kyu Ran Cho; Ok Hee Woo; Eun Kyung Park; Jaehyung Cha; Seungju Han
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.