The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accuracy and Surgical Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Staging: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Detection of Multifocal and Multicentric Cancer
Abstract
Purpose: We review the evidence on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging the affected breast to determine its accuracy and impact on treatment. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI in detection of multifocal (MF) and/or multicentric (MC) cancer not identified on conventional imaging. We estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, positive predictive value (PPV), true-positive (TP) to false positive (FP) ratio, and examined their variability according to quality criteria. Pooled estimates of the proportion of women whose surgery was altered were calculated. Results: Data from 19 studies showed MRI detects additional disease in 16% of women with breast cancer (N = 2,610). MRI incremental accuracy differed according to the reference standard (RS; P = .016) decreasing from 99% to 86% as the quality of the RS increased. Summary PPV was 66% (95% CI, 52% to 77%) and TP:FP ratio was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.09 to 3.34). Conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to mastectomy was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.9 to 11.3), from WLE to more extensive surgery was 11.3% in MF/MC disease (95% CI, 6.8 to 18.3). Due to MRI-detected lesions (in women who did not have additional malignancy on histology) conversion from WLE to mastectomy was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.6) and from WLE to more extensive surgery was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 9.5). Conclusion: MRI staging causes more extensive breast surgery in an important proportion of women by identifying additional cancer, however there is a need to reduce FP MRI detection. Randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical value of detecting additional disease which changes surgical treatment in women with apparently localized breast cancer.
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
Cited by
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
Mann, R. M., Cho, N., & Moy, L. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182947 · Cited by 917
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
Marinovich, M. L., Houssami, N., Macaskill, P., Sardanelli, F., Irwig, L., Mamounas, E. P., von Minckwitz, G., Brennan, M. E., & Ciatto, S. (2013) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djs528 · Cited by 382
Self-citationHoussami, 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., Ciatto, S., Macaskill, P., Lord, S. J., Warren, R. M., Dixon, J. M., & Irwig, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2008-07-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 3248-3258
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2109909368
- Cited by
- 831
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.71
- 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: Accuracy and Surgical Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Staging: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Detection of Multifocal and Multicentric Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.15.2108
- The paper
- Houssami, N., Ciatto, S., Macaskill, P., Lord, S. J., Warren, R. M., Dixon, J. M., & Irwig, L. (2008). Accuracy and Surgical Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Staging: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Detection of Multifocal and Multicentric Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.15.2108
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.