Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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·2013·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

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.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djs528

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Marinovich, M. L., Houssami, N., Macaskill, P., Sardanelli, F., Irwig, L., Mamounas, E. P., von Minckwitz, G., Brennan, M. E., & Ciatto, S.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2013-01-07
Volume
105
Issue
5
Pages
321-333
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2150539933
Cited by
382
References
60
FWCI
3.80
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: Meta-Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Residual Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djs528
The paper
Marinovich, M. L., Houssami, N., Macaskill, P., Sardanelli, F., Irwig, L., Mamounas, E. P., von Minckwitz, G., Brennan, M. E., & Ciatto, S. (2013). Meta-Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Residual Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs528

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.