Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 831

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

Houssami, Nehmat, Ciatto, Stefano, Macaskill, Petra, Lord, Sarah J., Warren, Ruth M., Dixon, J. Michael, Irwig, Les·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2007.15.2108

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.

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

Cited by

See all 831

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.