Cargando…
Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis
PURPOSE: To analyze the rate of potentially avoidable needle biopsies in mammographically suspicious calcifications if supplementary Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is negative. METHODS: Using predefined criteria, a systematic review was performed. Studies investigating the use of supplemental CE-MRI...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33618160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.002 |
_version_ | 1783655589500420096 |
---|---|
author | Fueger, Barbara J. Clauser, Paola Kapetas, Panagiotis Pötsch, Nina Helbich, Thomas H. Baltzer, Pascal A.T. |
author_facet | Fueger, Barbara J. Clauser, Paola Kapetas, Panagiotis Pötsch, Nina Helbich, Thomas H. Baltzer, Pascal A.T. |
author_sort | Fueger, Barbara J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To analyze the rate of potentially avoidable needle biopsies in mammographically suspicious calcifications if supplementary Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is negative. METHODS: Using predefined criteria, a systematic review was performed. Studies investigating the use of supplemental CE-MRI in the setting of mammographically suspicious calcifications undergoing stereotactic biopsy and published between 2000 and 2020 were eligible. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and true positives (TP), false positives, true negatives and false negatives (FN). Specificity, in this setting equaling the number of avoidable biopsies and FN rates were calculated. The maximum pre-test probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative CE-MRI met with BI-RADS benchmarks was determined by a Fagan nomogram. Random-effects models, I(2)-statistics, Deek’s funnel plot testing and meta-regression were employed. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Thirteen studies investigating 1414 lesions with a cancer prevalence of 43.6% (range: 22.7–66.9%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = 0.91). CE-MRI performed better in pure microcalcification studies compared to those also including associate findings (P < 0.001). In the first group, the pooled rate of avoidable biopsies was 80.6% (95%-CI: 64.6–90.5%) while the overall and invasive cancer FN rates were 3.7% (95%-CI: 1.2–6.2%) and 1.6% (95%-CI 0–3.6%), respectively. Up to a pre-test probability of 22%, the post-test probability did not exceed 2%. CONCLUSION: A negative supplementary CE-MRI could potentially avoid 80.6% of unnecessary stereotactic biopsies in BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications at a cost of 3.7% missed breast cancers, 1.6% invasive. BI-RADS benchmarks for downgrading mammographic calcifications would be met up to a pretest probability of 22%. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7907894 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79078942021-03-03 Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis Fueger, Barbara J. Clauser, Paola Kapetas, Panagiotis Pötsch, Nina Helbich, Thomas H. Baltzer, Pascal A.T. Breast Original Article PURPOSE: To analyze the rate of potentially avoidable needle biopsies in mammographically suspicious calcifications if supplementary Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is negative. METHODS: Using predefined criteria, a systematic review was performed. Studies investigating the use of supplemental CE-MRI in the setting of mammographically suspicious calcifications undergoing stereotactic biopsy and published between 2000 and 2020 were eligible. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and true positives (TP), false positives, true negatives and false negatives (FN). Specificity, in this setting equaling the number of avoidable biopsies and FN rates were calculated. The maximum pre-test probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative CE-MRI met with BI-RADS benchmarks was determined by a Fagan nomogram. Random-effects models, I(2)-statistics, Deek’s funnel plot testing and meta-regression were employed. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Thirteen studies investigating 1414 lesions with a cancer prevalence of 43.6% (range: 22.7–66.9%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = 0.91). CE-MRI performed better in pure microcalcification studies compared to those also including associate findings (P < 0.001). In the first group, the pooled rate of avoidable biopsies was 80.6% (95%-CI: 64.6–90.5%) while the overall and invasive cancer FN rates were 3.7% (95%-CI: 1.2–6.2%) and 1.6% (95%-CI 0–3.6%), respectively. Up to a pre-test probability of 22%, the post-test probability did not exceed 2%. CONCLUSION: A negative supplementary CE-MRI could potentially avoid 80.6% of unnecessary stereotactic biopsies in BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications at a cost of 3.7% missed breast cancers, 1.6% invasive. BI-RADS benchmarks for downgrading mammographic calcifications would be met up to a pretest probability of 22%. Elsevier 2021-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7907894/ /pubmed/33618160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.002 Text en © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Fueger, Barbara J. Clauser, Paola Kapetas, Panagiotis Pötsch, Nina Helbich, Thomas H. Baltzer, Pascal A.T. Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | can supplementary contrast-enhanced mri of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33618160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fuegerbarbaraj cansupplementarycontrastenhancedmriofthebreastavoidneedlebiopsiesinsuspiciousmicrocalcificationsseenonmammographyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT clauserpaola cansupplementarycontrastenhancedmriofthebreastavoidneedlebiopsiesinsuspiciousmicrocalcificationsseenonmammographyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kapetaspanagiotis cansupplementarycontrastenhancedmriofthebreastavoidneedlebiopsiesinsuspiciousmicrocalcificationsseenonmammographyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT potschnina cansupplementarycontrastenhancedmriofthebreastavoidneedlebiopsiesinsuspiciousmicrocalcificationsseenonmammographyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT helbichthomash cansupplementarycontrastenhancedmriofthebreastavoidneedlebiopsiesinsuspiciousmicrocalcificationsseenonmammographyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT baltzerpascalat cansupplementarycontrastenhancedmriofthebreastavoidneedlebiopsiesinsuspiciousmicrocalcificationsseenonmammographyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |