The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy
Abstract
CONTEXT: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to have high sensitivity for cancer detection and is increasingly used following mammography to evaluate suspicious breast lesions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of breast MRI in conjunction with mammography for the detection of breast cancer in patients with suspicious mammographic or clinical findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective multicenter investigation of the International Breast MR Consortium conducted at 14 university hospitals in North America and Europe from June 2, 1998, through October 31, 2001, of 821 patients referred for breast biopsy for American College of Radiology category 4 or 5 mammographic assessment or suspicious clinical or ultrasound finding. INTERVENTIONS: MRI examinations performed prior to breast biopsy; MRI results were interpreted at each site, which were blinded to pathological results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of breast MRI. RESULTS: Among the 821 patients, there were 404 malignant index lesions, of which 63 were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 341 were invasive carcinoma. Of the 417 nonmalignant index lesions, 366 were benign, 47 showed atypical histology, and 4 were lobular carcinoma in situ. The AUC pooled over all institutions was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.91). MRI correctly detected cancer in 356 of 404 cancer cases (DCIS or invasive cancer), resulting in a sensitivity of 88.1% (95% CI, 84.6%-91.1%), and correctly identified as negative for cancer 281 of 417 cases without cancer, resulting in a specificity of 67.7% (95% CI, 62.7%-71.9%). MRI performance was not significantly affected by mammographic breast density, tumor histology, or menopausal status. The positive predictive values for 356 of 492 patients was 72.4% (95% CI, 68.2%-76.3%) and of mammography for 367 of 695 patients was 52.8% (95% CI, 49.0%-56.6%) (P<.005). Dynamic MRI did not improve the AUC compared with 3-dimensional MRI alone, but the specificity of a washout pattern for 123 of 136 patients without cancer was 90.4% (95% CI, 84%-95%). CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI has high sensitivity but only moderate specificity independent of breast density, tumor type, and menopausal status. Although the positive predictive value of MRI is greater than mammography, MRI does not obviate the need for subsequent tissue sampling in this setting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Kriege, M., Brekelmans, C. T. M., Boetes, C., Besnard, P. E., Zonderland, H. M., Obdeijn, I. M., Manoliu, R. A., Kok, T., Peterse, H., Tilanus-Linthorst, M. M. A., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa031759 · Cited by 1,687
Kuhl, C. K., Mielcareck, P., Klaschik, S., Leutner, C., Wardelmann, E., Gieseke, J., & Schild, H. H. (1999) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101 · Cited by 1,277
Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.
Bird, R. E., Wallace, T. W., & Yankaskas, B. C. (1992) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.184.3.1509041 · Cited by 820
MR Imaging of the Breast for the Detection, Diagnosis, and Staging of Breast Cancer
Orel, S. G., & Schnall, M. D. (2001) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.220.1.r01jl3113 · Cited by 759
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art.
Hanley, J. A. (1989) · PubMed · Cited by 685
Breast Carcinoma: Effect of Preoperative Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging on the Therapeutic Approach
Fischer, U., Kopka, L., & Grabbe, E. (1999) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc01881 · Cited by 664
Harms, S. E., Flamig, D. P., Hesley, K. L., Meiches, M. D., Jensen, R. A., Evans, W. P., Savino, D. A., & Wells, R. V. (1993) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.187.2.8475297 · Cited by 634
Heritability of Mammographic Density, a Risk Factor for Breast Cancer
Boyd, N. F., Dite, G. S., Stone, J., Gunasekara, A., English, D. R., McCredie, M. R. E., Giles, G. G., Tritchler, D., Chiarelli, A., Yaffe, M. J., et al. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa013390 · Cited by 611
Comparisons of Predictive Values of Binary Medical Diagnostic Tests for Paired Designs
Leisenring, W., Alono, T., & Pepe, M. S. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00345.x · Cited by 355
Cited by
Electromagnetic Breast Imaging: Results of a Pilot Study in Women with Abnormal Mammograms
Poplack, S. P., Tosteson, T. D., Wells, W. A., Pogue, B. W., Meaney, P. M., Hartov, A., Kogel, C. A., Soho, S. K., Gibson, J. J., & Paulsen, K. D. (2007) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2432060286 · Cited by 299
El Khouli, R. H., Macura, K. J., Barker, P. B., Habba, M. R., Jacobs, M. A., & Bluemke, D. A. (2009) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.21947 · Cited by 213
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bluemke, D. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-12-08
- Volume
- 292
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2735
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2156810601
- Cited by
- 513
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 23.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.292.22.2735
- The paper
- Bluemke, D. A. (2004). Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.22.2735
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.