The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Surgical Outcomes
Abstract
In Brief Background and Objective: The role of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) is controversial. This meta-analysis examines the effect of preoperative MRI compared with standard preoperative assessment on surgical outcomes, focusing on studies that used a controlled design. Methods: Using random-effects logistic meta-regression modeling, we estimated the proportion of women with each outcome in the MRI versus no-MRI groups, and calculated the odds ratio (OR) and adjusted OR (adjusted for study-level median age, and, where appropriate, for temporal effect) for each model. Results: There were 9 eligible studies (2 randomized trials; 7 comparative cohorts). Outcomes in 3112 patients with BC (any histological tumor type) for MRI versus no-MRI (referent) were as follows: initial mastectomy 16.4% versus 8.1% [OR, 2.22 (P < 0.001); adjusted OR, 3.06 (P < 0.001)]; re-excision after initial breast conservation 11.6% versus 11.4% [OR, 1.02 (P = 0.87); adjusted OR, 0.95 (P = 0.71)]; overall mastectomy 25.5% versus 18.2% [OR, 1.54 (P < 0.001); adjusted OR, 1.51 (P < 0.001)]. In 766 patients with invasive lobular cancer (ILC), outcomes were as follows: initial mastectomy 31.1% versus 24.9% [OR, 1.36 (P = 0.056); adjusted OR, 2.12 (P = 0.008)]; re-excision after initial breast conservation 10.9% versus 18.0% [OR, 0.56 (P = 0.031); adjusted OR, 0.56 (P = 0.09)]; overall mastectomy 43.0% versus 40.2% [OR, 1.12 (P = 0.45); adjusted OR, 1.64 (P = 0.034)]. Conclusions: Our summary of the evidence showed that MRI significantly increased mastectomy rates and suggests an unfavorable harm-benefit ratio for routine use of preoperative MRI in BC. We found weak evidence that MRI reduced re-excision surgery in patients with ILC —although this was at the expense of increased mastectomies—and overall patient benefit from MRI in ILC is not clear from this study. Meta-regression modeling of studies using a controlled design to examine the effect of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer (3112 patients) showed that using MRI versus standard preoperative assessment (no-MRI) increased the overall mastectomy rate [25.5% vs 18.2%; odds ratio (OR), 1.54 (P < 0.001); adjusted OR, 1.51 (P < 0.001)] and did not reduce re-excision surgery in those with initial breast conservation [11.6% vs 11.4%; OR, 1.02 (P = 0.87); adjusted OR, 0.95 (P = 0.71)].
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
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography
Saslow, D., Boetes, C., Burke, W., Harms, S., Leach, M. O., Lehman, C. D., Morris, E., Pisano, E., Schnall, M., Sener, S., et al. (2007) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75 · Cited by 2,637
Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group
Sardanelli, F., Boetes, C., Borisch, B., Decker, T., Federico, M., Gilbert, F. J., Helbich, T., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Kaiser, W. A., Kerin, M. J., et al. (2010) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015 · Cited by 992
Houssami, N., Ciatto, S., Macaskill, P., Lord, S. J., Warren, R. M., Dixon, J. M., & Irwig, L. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.15.2108 · Cited by 831
Self-citationComparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial
Turnbull, L., Brown, S., Harvey, I., Olivier, C., Drew, P., Napp, V., Hanby, A., & Brown, J. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)62070-5 · Cited by 642
Mamounas, E. P., Tang, G., Fisher, B., Paik, S., Shak, S., Costantino, J. P., Watson, D., Geyer, C. E., Wickerham, D. L., & Wolmark, N. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.23.7610 · Cited by 619
Kyndi, M., Sørensen, F. B., Knudsen, H., Overgaard, M., Nielsen, H. M., & Overgaard, J. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.14.5565 · Cited by 568
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy
Bluemke, D. A. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.22.2735 · Cited by 513
Anderson, S. J., Wapnir, I., Dignam, J. J., Fisher, B., Mamounas, E. P., Jeong, J.-H., Geyer, C. E., Wickerham, D. L., Costantino, J. P., & Wolmark, N. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2008.19.8424 · Cited by 458
MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment
Morrow, M., Waters, J., & Morris, E. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61350-0 · Cited by 448
Self-citationSolin, L. J., Orel, S. G., Hwang, W.-T., Harris, E. E., & Schnall, M. D. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.09.5448 · Cited by 346
Cited by
Houssami, N., Turner, R. M., & Morrow, M. (2017) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4324-3 · Cited by 243
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Houssami, N., Turner, R., & Morrow, M.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 257
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 249-255
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2321856242
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 19.58
- 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: Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Surgical Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31827a8d17
- The paper
- Houssami, N., Turner, R., & Morrow, M. (2013). Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Surgical Outcomes. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31827a8d17
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.