Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions

Radiology

Volumn 246, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 116-124

  Peters, Nicky H G M ^a   Borel Rinkes, Inne H M ^a   Zuithoff, Nicolaas P A ^a   Mali, Willem P T M ^a   Moons, Karel G M ^a   Peeters, Petra H M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; META ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 37349075419     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461061298     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland H, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995;197(3):743-747.
2. Kacl GM, Liu P, Debatin JF, Garzoli E, Caduff RF, Krestin GP. Detection of breast cancer with conventional mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 1998;8(2):194-200.
3. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004;30(5):501-507.
4. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183(4):1149-1157.
5. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs MA, Davidson T, et al. Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(2):417-424.
6. Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A. Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res 2001;3(1):55-60.
7. Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M, Thelen M. Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(6):1493-1501.
8. Soderstrom CE, Harms SE, Copit DS, et al. Three-dimensional RODEO breast MR imaging of lesions containing ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1996;201(2):427-432.
9. Hwang ES, Kinkel K, Esserman LJ, Lu Y, Weidner N, Hylton NM. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10(4):381-388.
10. Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Sylvan M, Boné B. Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in breast neoplasms. Eur Radiol 2003;13(6);1207-1212.
11. Amano G, Ohuchi N, Ishibashi T, Ishida T, Amari M, Satomi S. Correlalion of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;60(1):43-55.
12. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5):427-437.
13. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365(9473):1769-1778.
14. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(33):8469-8476.
15. Brix G, Henze M, Knopp MV, et al. Comparison of pharmacokinetic MRI and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the diagnosis of breast cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2001;11(10):2058-2070.
16. Choi BG, Kim HH, Kim EN, et al. New subtraction algorithms for evaluation of lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12(12):3018-3022.
17. Trecate G, Tess JD, Vergnaghi D, et al. Breast microcalcifications studied with 3D contrast-enhanced high-field magnetic resonance imaging: more accuracy in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Tumori 2002;88(3):224-233.
18. Flanagan FL, Murray JG, Gilligan P, Stack JP, Ennis JT. Digital subtraction in Gd-DTPA enhanced imaging of the breast. Clin Radiol 1995;50(12):848-854.
19. Ikeda O, Yamashita Y, Morishita S, et al. Characterization of breast masses by dynamic enhanced MR imaging: a logistic regression analysis. Acta Radiol 1999;40(6):585-592.
20. Cecil KM, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, Lenkinski RE. The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;68(1):45-54.
21. Turkat TJ, Klein BD, Polan RL, Richman RH. Dynamic MR mammography: a technique for potentially reducing the biopsy rate for benign breast disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994;4(4):563-568.
22. Tiling R, Khalkhali I, Sommer H, et al. Limited value of scintimammography and contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of microcalcification detected by mammography. Nucl Med Commun 1998;19(1):55-62.
23. Alamo L, Fischer U. Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound characteristics in hypervascular breast tumors: comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 2001;11(6):970-977.
24. Reinikainen H, Paakko E, Suramo I, Paivansalo M, Jauhiainen J, Rissanen T. Dynamics of contrast enhancement in MR imaging and power Doppler ultrasonography of solid breast lesions. Acta Radiol 2002;43(5):492-500.
25. Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast 2003;12(1):17-22.
26. Sinha S, Lucas-Quesada FA, DeBruhl ND, et al. Multifeature analysis of Gd-enhanced MR images of breast lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7(6):1016-1026.
27. Bagni B, Franceschetto A, Casolo A, et al. Scintimammograpby with 99mTc-MIBI and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(10):1383-1388.
28. Gibbs P, Liney GP, Lowry M, Kneeshaw PJ, Turnbull LW. Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1 cm breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Breast 2004;13(2):115-121.
29. Huang W, Fisher PR, Dulaimy K, Tudorica LA, O'Hea B, Button TM. Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. Radiology 2004;232(2):585-591.
30. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, et al. Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 1995;197(2):387-395.
31. Obdeijn IM, Kuijpers TJ, van Dijk P, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M. MR lesion detection in a breast cancer population. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6(6):849-854.
32. Palmedo H, Grunwald F, Bender H, et al. Scintimammography with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile: comparison with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23(8):940-946.
33. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicions breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175(1):35-43.
34. Schedel H, Oellinger H, Kohlschein P, et al. Magnetic resonance female breast imaging (MRFBI): evaluation of the changes in signal intensity over time pre- and post-administration of 0.2 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA. Zentralbl Gynakol 2002;124(2):104-110.
35. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996;200(3):639-649.
36. Daldrup-Link HE, Rydland J, Helbich TH, et al. Quantification of breast tumor microvascular permeability with feruglose-enhanced MR imaging: initial phase II multicenter trial. Radiology 2003;229(3):885-892.
37. Blohmer JU, Oellinger H, Schmidt C, Hufnagl P, Felix R, Lichtenegger W. Comparison of various imaging methods with particular evaluation of color Doppler sonography for planning surgery for breast tumors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1999;262(3-4):159-171.
38. Kelcz F, Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Degani H. Clinical testing of high-spatial-resolution parametric contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(6):1485-1492.
39. Hulka CA, Edmister WB, Smith BL, et al. Dynamic echo-planar imaging of the breast: experience in diagnosing breast carcinoma and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1997;205(3):837-842.
40. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993:187(2):493-501.
41. Helbich TH, Becherer A, Trattnig S, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR imaging versus Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Radiology 1997;202(2):421-429.
42. Kelcz F, Santyr GE, Cron GO, Mongin SJ. Application of a quantitative model to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions detected by dynamic, gadolinium-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6(5):743-752.
43. Sherif H, Mahfouz AE, Oellinger H, et al. Peripheral washout sign on contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Radiology 1997;205(1):209-213.
44. Heiberg EV, Perman WH, Herrmann VM, Janney CG. Dynamic sequential 3D gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the whole breast. Magn Reson Imaging 1996;14(4):337-348.
45. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994;193(3):777-781.
46. Fobben ES, Rubin CZ, Kalisher L, Dembner AG, Seltzer MH, Santoro EJ. Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1995;196(1):143-152.
47. Lucht RE, Knopp MV, Brix G. Classification of signal-time curves from dynamic MR mammography by neural networks. Magn Reson Imaging 2001;19(1):51-57.
48. Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Perbeck L, Boné B. Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions. Acta Radiol 2002;43(3):275-281.
49. Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kacl G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol 1998;71(845):501-509.
50. Abdolmaleki P, Buadu LD, Naderimansh H. Feature extraction and classification of breast cancer on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using artificial neural network. Cancer Lett 2001;171(2):183-191.
51. Gilles R, Meunier M, Lucidarme O, et al. Clustered breast microcalcifications: evaluation by dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20(1):9-14.
52. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 1995;196(1):115-122.
53. Boné B, Péntek Z, Perbeck L, Veress B. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiol 1997;38(4 pt 1):489-496.
54. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999:211(1):101-110.
55. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG. Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology 2001;219(2):484-494.
56. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999;213(3):881-888.
57. Fischer DR, Baltzer P, Malich A, et al. Is the "blooming sign" a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography? Eur Radiol 2004;14(3):394-401.
58. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004;292(22):2735-2742.
59. Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS, Langlotz CP. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 1999;6(7):387-397.
60. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
61. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 2003;226(1):24-28.
62. Fletcher RH. Carcinoembryonic antigen. Ann Intern Med 1986;104(1):66-73.
63. Hlatky MA, Pryor DB, Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Mark DB, Rosati RA. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography: multivariable analysis. Am J Med 1984;77(1):64-71.
64. Moons KG, van Es GA, Deckers JW, Habbema JD, Grobbee DE. Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and Bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: a clinical example. Epidemiology 1997;8(1):12-17.
65. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282(11):1061-1066.
66. Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making 1993;13(4):313-321.
67. Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med 2004;23(9):1351-1375.
68. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56(11):1129-1135.
69. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48(1):119-130.
70. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993;12(14):1293-1316.
71. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(10):982-990.
72. Schnall MD, Ikeda DM. Lesion Diagnosis Working Group report. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10(6):982-990.
73. Feise RJ. Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:8.
74. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990;1(1):43-46.