Breast lesions: diagnosis by using proton MR spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3.0 T--systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the diagnostic performance of breast proton magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy in differentiating benign from malignant lesions and to identify variables that influence the accuracy of MR spectroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed on articles listed until January 6, 2012. The Medical Subject Headings and text words for the terms "breast," "spectroscopy," and "magnetic resonance" were used. Investigations including more than 10 patients at 1.5 T or 3.0 T applying one-dimensional single-voxel MR spectroscopy or spatially resolved MR spectroscopy for differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions were eligible. A reference standard had to be established either by means of histopathologic examination or imaging follow-up of 12 or more months. Statistical analysis included pooling of diagnostic accuracy, control for data inhomogeneity, and identification of publication bias. RESULTS Nineteen studies were used for general data pooling. The studies included a total of 1183 patients and 1198 lesions (773 malignant, 452 benign). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 73% (556 of 761; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64%, 82%) and 88% (386 of 439; 95% CI: 85%, 91%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 34.30 (95% CI: 16.71, 70.43). For breast cancers versus benign lesions, the area under the symmetric summary receiver operating characteristic curve of MR spectroscopy was 0.88, and the Q* index was 0.81. There was evidence of between-studies heterogeneity regarding sensitivity and DOR (P < .0001). No significant influences of higher field strength, postcontrast acquisition, or qualitative versus quantitative MR spectroscopy measurements were identified. Egger testing confirmed significant publication bias in studies including small numbers of patients (P < .0001). CONCLUSION Breast MR spectroscopy shows variable sensitivity and high specificity in the diagnosis of breast lesions, independent from the technical MR spectroscopy approach. Because of significant publication bias, pooled diagnostic measures might be overestimated.

[1]  U. Sharma,et al.  Association of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status with total choline concentration and tumor volume in breast cancer patients: An MRI and in vivo proton MRS study , 2012, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  C. Kappas,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of the Breast at 3T: Pre- and Post-Contrast Evaluation for Breast Lesion Characterization , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[3]  H. Baek.  Diagnostic Value of Breast Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy at 1.5T in Different Histopathological Types , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[4]  Fiona J Gilbert,et al.  In vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer: a review of the literature , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[5]  W. Kaiser,et al.  Effect of contrast agent on the results of in vivo 1H MRS of breast tumors – is it clinically significant? , 2012, NMR in biomedicine.

[6]  T. Helbich,et al.  Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging at 3 T for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. , 2011, Radiology.

[7]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  The added value of quantitative multi-voxel MR spectroscopy in breast magnetic resonance imaging , 2011, European Radiology.

[8]  Wei Huang,et al.  Diagnostic usefulness of water‐to‐fat ratio and choline concentration in malignant and benign breast lesions and normal breast parenchyma: An in vivo 1H MRS study , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  Matthias Benndorf,et al.  False-positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  R. Birdwell.  1H MR Spectroscopy and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Breast: Are They Useful Tools for Characterizing Breast Lesions Before Biopsy? , 2010 .

[11]  Wendy B DeMartini,et al.  BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Study of normal breast tissue by in vivo volume localized proton MR spectroscopy: variation of water-fat ratio in relation to the heterogeneity of the breast and the menstrual cycle. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[13]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Interaction of gadolinium‐based MR contrast agents with choline: Implications for MR spectroscopy (MRS) of the breast , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  F. Podo,et al.  In vivo proton MR spectroscopy of the breast using the total choline peak integral as a marker of malignancy. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Michael Garwood,et al.  Metabolite quantification and high‐field MRS in breast cancer , 2009, NMR in biomedicine.

[16]  Saadallah Ramadan,et al.  Proton MRS of the breast in the clinical setting , 2009, NMR in biomedicine.

[17]  F. Howe,et al.  Effect of Gd‐DTPA‐BMA on choline signals of HT29 tumors detected by in vivo 1H MRS , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[18]  Les Irwig,et al.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  D. Plewes,et al.  Systematic Review: Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Screen Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Hon J. Yu,et al.  Detection of choline signal in human breast lesions with chemical‐shift imaging , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[21]  Wei Huang,et al.  Enhancing nonmass lesions in the breast: evaluation with proton (1H) MR spectroscopy. , 2007, Radiology.

[22]  Peifang Liu,et al.  Evaluation of spectral selected press sequence in breast lesion characterization. , 2006, Chinese medical sciences journal = Chung-kuo i hsueh k'o hsueh tsa chih.

[23]  Javier Zamora,et al.  Meta-DiSc : a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data , 2015 .

[24]  Wei Huang,et al.  Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. , 2006, Radiology.

[25]  Hon J. Yu,et al.  Quantification of Choline-containing Compounds in Malignant Breast Tumors by 1H MR Spectroscopy Using Water as an Internal Reference at 1.5 T , 2006, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[26]  L. Liberman,et al.  Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  N. Hylton,et al.  Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. , 2006, Radiology.

[28]  T. E. Hinds.  Diseases , 2021, Modeling Biological Systems.

[29]  Wei Huang,et al.  Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. , 2004, Radiology.

[30]  D. Bluemke,et al.  Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of human breast cancer: A preliminary study , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[31]  Robert E. Lenkinski,et al.  The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy , 2001, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[32]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[33]  Winnie C W Chu,et al.  Characterization of lesions of the breast with proton MR spectroscopy: comparison of carcinomas, benign lesions, and phyllodes tumors. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  Sung-Hwan Park,et al.  In vivo 1H-MRS evaluation of malignant and benign breast diseases. , 2003, Breast.

[35]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Clinical utility of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in characterizing breast lesions. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[36]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[37]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[38]  M. Leach,et al.  The effects of paramagnetic contrast agents on metabolite protons in aqueous solution. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[39]  D. Yeung,et al.  Human breast lesions: characterization with contrast-enhanced in vivo proton MR spectroscopy--initial results. , 2001, Radiology.

[40]  W. Kaiser,et al.  Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast‐enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[41]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[42]  I. Gribbestad,et al.  Characterization of neoplastic and normal human breast tissues with in vivo 1H MR spectroscopy , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[43]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? , 1999, Radiology.

[44]  V. Govindaraju,et al.  Volume localized in vivo proton MR spectroscopy of breast carcinoma: variation of water–fat ratio in patients receiving chemotherapy , 1998, NMR in biomedicine.

[45]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Human breast lesions: characterization with proton MR spectroscopy. , 1998, Radiology.

[46]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.

[47]  C. Begg,et al.  Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. , 1994, Biometrics.

[48]  L E Moses,et al.  Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.