Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The authors performed a systematic, critical review of the literature on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for primary breast cancer detection in patients with suspicious breast lesions, analyzed MR test performance in the articles meeting study criteria, and used this information to examine the cost-effectiveness of preoperative MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS A structured, predefined MEDLINE search was conducted to identify potentially relevant, peer-reviewed, English-language references from January 1996 through August 1997 on the diagnostic accuracy of breast MR imaging. This information was supplemented by manually searching bibliographies of the retrieved articles for additional potentially relevant references. All studies were independently abstracted by two reviewers using a prospectively designed worksheet. Abstraction results were analyzed with the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. RESULTS Of 41 identified studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported sensitivities ranging from 63% to 100% and specificities ranging from 21% to 100%. Maximum joint sensitivity and specificity of the summary ROC curve was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%, 93%). At a sensitivity of 95%, specificity was 67%. When test performance values were applied to a previous cost-effectiveness analysis, the cost-effectiveness of preoperative MR imaging relative to that of excisional biopsy was confirmed, but its cost-effectiveness relative to that of needle core biopsy varied widely. CONCLUSION For MR imaging to be a cost-effective alternative to excisional biopsy for diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions, its diagnostic test performance must be equal to or better than the best results in recently published studies.

[1]  W H Perman,et al.  Dynamic sequential 3D gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the whole breast. , 1996, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[2]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[3]  K. Hopper,et al.  Nonpalpable breast lesions: stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. , 1991, Radiology.

[4]  L. Kalisher,et al.  Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. , 1995, Radiology.

[5]  B. D. Klein,et al.  Dynamic MR mammography: A technique for potentially reducing the biopsy rate for benign breast disease , 1994, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  M. Lechner,et al.  Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy and surgical biopsy results. , 1993, Radiology.

[7]  O Lucidarme,et al.  Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. , 1994, Radiology.

[8]  J. Murray,et al.  Digital subtraction in Gd-DTPA enhanced imaging of the breast. , 1995, Clinical radiology.

[9]  D K Owens,et al.  Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Diagnosis of HIV Infection in Adults , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  C. Langlotz,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging and core-needle biopsy in the preoperative work-up of suspicious breast lesions. , 1999, Radiology.

[11]  P Aspelin,et al.  Sensitivity and Specificity of MR Mammography with Histopathological Correlation in 250 Breasts , 1996, Acta radiologica.

[12]  R. Tiling,et al.  Comparison of technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography with contrast-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of breast lesions. , 1997, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  W H Perman,et al.  Half-Fourier, three-dimensional technique for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of both breasts and axillae: initial characterization of breast lesions. , 1996, Radiology.

[14]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. , 1996, JAMA.

[15]  L J van Erning,et al.  MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. , 1994, Radiology.

[16]  C. Arkin,et al.  How many patients are necessary to assess test performance? , 1990, JAMA.

[17]  O Lucidarme,et al.  Clustered breast microcalcifications: evaluation by dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI. , 1996, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[18]  Frederick Kelcz,et al.  Application of a quantitative model to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions detected by dynamic, gadolinium‐enhanced MRI , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  M Oudkerk,et al.  MR lesion detection in a breast cancer population , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[20]  L E Moses,et al.  Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  T. Eberlein,et al.  Biopsy of occult breast lesions. Analysis of 1261 abnormalities. , 1990, JAMA.

[22]  M D Schnall,et al.  Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. , 1997, Radiology.

[23]  T Leitha,et al.  Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR imaging versus Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. , 1997, Radiology.

[24]  J. Donohue,et al.  Breast biopsy: a comparative study of stereotaxically guided core and excisional techniques. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  S. Siegelman,et al.  Improving radiology research methods: what is being asked and who is being studied? , 1997, Radiology.

[26]  S. Edge,et al.  Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. , 1995, Radiology.