Cited by 237MRI in cancer diagnosisBreast Lesions and CarcinomasBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review

Open access
Lobbes, M. B. I., Prevos, R., Smidt, M., Tjan-Heijnen, V. C. G., van Goethem, M., Schipper, R., Beets-Tan, R. G., Wildberger, J. E.·2013·Insights into Imaging

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating residual disease extent and the ability to detect pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies published until 1 July 2012. After primary selection, two reviewers independently assessed the content of each eligible study using a standardised extraction form and pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 35 eligible studies were selected. Correlation coefficients of residual tumour size assessed by MRI and pathology were good, with a median value of 0.698. Reported sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for predicting pCR with MRI ranged from 25 to 100 %, 50-97 %, 47-73 % and 71-100 %, respectively. Both overestimation and underestimation were observed. MRI proved more accurate in determining residual disease than physical examination, mammography and ultrasound. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be influenced by treatment regimen and breast cancer subtype. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI accuracy for assessing residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is good and surpasses other diagnostic means. However, both overestimation and underestimation of residual disease extent could be observed. MAIN MESSAGES: • Breast MRI accuracy for assessing residual disease is good and surpasses other diagnostic means. • Correlation coefficients of residual tumour size assessed by MRI and pathology were considered good. • However, both overestimation and underestimation of residual disease were observed. • Diagnostic accuracy of MRI seems to be affected by treatment regimen and breast cancer subtype.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13244-013-0219-y

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MRI is superior to mammography and US in determining tumor extent and morphology before and after NAC.

    “MRI is superior to mammography and US in determining tumor extent and morphology before and after NAC because it provides comprehensive imaging information about tumors (6).”

    From A multimodal and fully automated system for prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction says MRI is superior to mammography and ultrasound for assessing tumour extent and additional foci; the Results and Discussion report better assessment of residual disease after NAC. The cited passages do not establish superiority for assessing tumour morphology before and after NAC, or give “comprehensive imaging information” as the reason for it. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lobbes, M. B. I., Prevos, R., Smidt, M., Tjan-Heijnen, V. C. G., van Goethem, M., Schipper, R., Beets-Tan, R. G., & Wildberger, J. E.
Affiliations
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Lobbes, M. B. I.
Venue
Insights into Imaging
Published
2013-01-29
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
163-175
ISSN
1869-4101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057016707
Cited by
237
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Insights into Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
breast MRI, residual disease, pathological complete response, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, invasive breast cancer, diagnostic accuracy, breast cancer subtypes

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