Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

Michael L. Marinovich, Nehmat Houssami, Petra MacAskill, Francesco Sardanelli, Les Irwig, Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Gunter Von Minckwitz, Meagan E. Brennan, Stefano Ciatto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

157 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: It has been proposed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be used to guide breast cancer surgery by differentiating residual tumor from pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This meta-analysis examines MRI accuracy in detecting residual tumor, investigates variables potentially affecting MRI performance, and compares MRI with other tests. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate (relative) diagnostic odds ratios ([R]DORs). Summary sensitivity (correct identification of residual tumor), specificity (correct identification of pCR), and areas under the SROC curves (AUCs) were derived. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Forty-four studies (2050 patients) were included. The overall AUC of MRI was 0.88. Accuracy was lower for "standard" pCR definitions (referent category) than "less clearly described" (RDOR = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 5.23) or "near-pCR" definitions (RDOR = 2.60, 95% CI = 0.73 to 9.24; P =. 03.) Corresponding AUCs were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.91. Specificity was higher when negative MRI was defined as contrast enhancement less than or equal to normal tissue (0.83, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.93) vs no enhancement (0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.69; P =. 02), with comparable sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; vs 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.92; P =. 45). MRI had higher accuracy than mammography (P =. 02); there was only weak evidence that MRI had higher accuracy than clinical examination (P =. 10). No difference in MRI and ultrasound accuracy was found (P =. 15). Conclusions: MRI accurately detects residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Accuracy was lower when pCR was more rigorously defined, and specificity was lower when test negativity thresholds were more stringent; these definitions require standardization. MRI is more accurate than mammography; however, studies comparing MRI and ultrasound are required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)321-333
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume105
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 6 2013

Fingerprint

Neoadjuvant Therapy
Residual Neoplasm
Meta-Analysis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Breast Neoplasms
Confidence Intervals
Area Under Curve
Mammography
Odds Ratio
Drug Therapy
ROC Curve

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. / Marinovich, Michael L.; Houssami, Nehmat; MacAskill, Petra; Sardanelli, Francesco; Irwig, Les; Mamounas, Eleftherios P.; Von Minckwitz, Gunter; Brennan, Meagan E.; Ciatto, Stefano.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 105, No. 5, 06.03.2013, p. 321-333.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marinovich, ML, Houssami, N, MacAskill, P, Sardanelli, F, Irwig, L, Mamounas, EP, Von Minckwitz, G, Brennan, ME & Ciatto, S 2013, 'Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy', Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 321-333. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs528
Marinovich, Michael L. ; Houssami, Nehmat ; MacAskill, Petra ; Sardanelli, Francesco ; Irwig, Les ; Mamounas, Eleftherios P. ; Von Minckwitz, Gunter ; Brennan, Meagan E. ; Ciatto, Stefano. / Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2013 ; Vol. 105, No. 5. pp. 321-333.
@article{b49a6b62519b41a2a3acc1c516a51a29,
title = "Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy",
abstract = "Background: It has been proposed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be used to guide breast cancer surgery by differentiating residual tumor from pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This meta-analysis examines MRI accuracy in detecting residual tumor, investigates variables potentially affecting MRI performance, and compares MRI with other tests. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate (relative) diagnostic odds ratios ([R]DORs). Summary sensitivity (correct identification of residual tumor), specificity (correct identification of pCR), and areas under the SROC curves (AUCs) were derived. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Forty-four studies (2050 patients) were included. The overall AUC of MRI was 0.88. Accuracy was lower for {"}standard{"} pCR definitions (referent category) than {"}less clearly described{"} (RDOR = 2.41, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 5.23) or {"}near-pCR{"} definitions (RDOR = 2.60, 95{\%} CI = 0.73 to 9.24; P =. 03.) Corresponding AUCs were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.91. Specificity was higher when negative MRI was defined as contrast enhancement less than or equal to normal tissue (0.83, 95{\%} CI = 0.64 to 0.93) vs no enhancement (0.54, 95{\%} CI = 0.39 to 0.69; P =. 02), with comparable sensitivity (0.83, 95{\%} CI = 0.69 to 0.91; vs 0.87, 95{\%} CI = 0.80 to 0.92; P =. 45). MRI had higher accuracy than mammography (P =. 02); there was only weak evidence that MRI had higher accuracy than clinical examination (P =. 10). No difference in MRI and ultrasound accuracy was found (P =. 15). Conclusions: MRI accurately detects residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Accuracy was lower when pCR was more rigorously defined, and specificity was lower when test negativity thresholds were more stringent; these definitions require standardization. MRI is more accurate than mammography; however, studies comparing MRI and ultrasound are required.",
author = "Marinovich, {Michael L.} and Nehmat Houssami and Petra MacAskill and Francesco Sardanelli and Les Irwig and Mamounas, {Eleftherios P.} and {Von Minckwitz}, Gunter and Brennan, {Meagan E.} and Stefano Ciatto",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djs528",
language = "English",
volume = "105",
pages = "321--333",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

AU - Marinovich, Michael L.

AU - Houssami, Nehmat

AU - MacAskill, Petra

AU - Sardanelli, Francesco

AU - Irwig, Les

AU - Mamounas, Eleftherios P.

AU - Von Minckwitz, Gunter

AU - Brennan, Meagan E.

AU - Ciatto, Stefano

PY - 2013/3/6

Y1 - 2013/3/6

N2 - Background: It has been proposed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be used to guide breast cancer surgery by differentiating residual tumor from pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This meta-analysis examines MRI accuracy in detecting residual tumor, investigates variables potentially affecting MRI performance, and compares MRI with other tests. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate (relative) diagnostic odds ratios ([R]DORs). Summary sensitivity (correct identification of residual tumor), specificity (correct identification of pCR), and areas under the SROC curves (AUCs) were derived. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Forty-four studies (2050 patients) were included. The overall AUC of MRI was 0.88. Accuracy was lower for "standard" pCR definitions (referent category) than "less clearly described" (RDOR = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 5.23) or "near-pCR" definitions (RDOR = 2.60, 95% CI = 0.73 to 9.24; P =. 03.) Corresponding AUCs were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.91. Specificity was higher when negative MRI was defined as contrast enhancement less than or equal to normal tissue (0.83, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.93) vs no enhancement (0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.69; P =. 02), with comparable sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; vs 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.92; P =. 45). MRI had higher accuracy than mammography (P =. 02); there was only weak evidence that MRI had higher accuracy than clinical examination (P =. 10). No difference in MRI and ultrasound accuracy was found (P =. 15). Conclusions: MRI accurately detects residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Accuracy was lower when pCR was more rigorously defined, and specificity was lower when test negativity thresholds were more stringent; these definitions require standardization. MRI is more accurate than mammography; however, studies comparing MRI and ultrasound are required.

AB - Background: It has been proposed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be used to guide breast cancer surgery by differentiating residual tumor from pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This meta-analysis examines MRI accuracy in detecting residual tumor, investigates variables potentially affecting MRI performance, and compares MRI with other tests. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate (relative) diagnostic odds ratios ([R]DORs). Summary sensitivity (correct identification of residual tumor), specificity (correct identification of pCR), and areas under the SROC curves (AUCs) were derived. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Forty-four studies (2050 patients) were included. The overall AUC of MRI was 0.88. Accuracy was lower for "standard" pCR definitions (referent category) than "less clearly described" (RDOR = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 5.23) or "near-pCR" definitions (RDOR = 2.60, 95% CI = 0.73 to 9.24; P =. 03.) Corresponding AUCs were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.91. Specificity was higher when negative MRI was defined as contrast enhancement less than or equal to normal tissue (0.83, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.93) vs no enhancement (0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.69; P =. 02), with comparable sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; vs 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.92; P =. 45). MRI had higher accuracy than mammography (P =. 02); there was only weak evidence that MRI had higher accuracy than clinical examination (P =. 10). No difference in MRI and ultrasound accuracy was found (P =. 15). Conclusions: MRI accurately detects residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Accuracy was lower when pCR was more rigorously defined, and specificity was lower when test negativity thresholds were more stringent; these definitions require standardization. MRI is more accurate than mammography; however, studies comparing MRI and ultrasound are required.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874855647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874855647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djs528

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djs528

M3 - Article

VL - 105

SP - 321

EP - 333

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 5

ER -