Dataset Information

Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

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, I²-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%.

SUBMITTER: Fueger BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7907894 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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 BJ Clauser Paola P Kapetas Panagiotis P Pötsch Nina N Helbich Thomas H TH Baltzer Pascal A T PAT

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20210215

<h4>Purpose</h4>To analyze the rate of potentially avoidable needle biopsies in mammographically suspicious calcifications if supplementary Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is negative.<h4>Methods</h4>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 characteristi ...[more]

PMID: 33618160

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDue to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (bMRI) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The high number of detected lesions poses a significant logistic challenge in clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate a temporally and spatially resolved (4D) radiomics approach to distinguish benign from malignant enhancing breast lesions and thereby avoid unnecessary biopsies.MethodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients with MRI-suspicious findings (BI-RADS 4/5). Two blinded readers analyzed DCE images using a commercially available software, automatically extracting BI-RADS curve types and pharmacokinetic enhancement features. After principal component analysis (PCA), a neural network-derived A.I. classifier to discriminate benign from malignant lesions was constructed and tested using a random split simple approach. The rate of avoidable biopsies was evaluated at exploratory cutoffs (C1, 100%, and C2, ≥ 95% sensitivity).ResultsFour hundred seventy (295 malignant) lesions in 329 female patients (mean age 55.1 years, range 18-85 years) were examined. Eighty-six DCE features were extracted based on automated volumetric lesion analysis. Five independent component features were extracted using PCA. The A.I. classifier achieved a significant (p < .001) accuracy to distinguish benign from malignant lesion within the test sample (AUC: 83.5%; 95% CI: 76.8-89.0%). Applying identified cutoffs on testing data not included in training dataset showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign lesions by 14.5% (C1) and 36.2% (C2).ConclusionThe investigated automated 4D radiomics approach resulted in an accurate A.I. classifier able to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Its application could have avoided unnecessary biopsies.Key points• Principal component analysis of the extracted volumetric and temporally resolved (4D) DCE markers favored pharmacokinetic modeling derived features. • An A.I. classifier based on 86 extracted DCE features achieved a good to excellent diagnostic performance as measured by the area under the ROC curve with 80.6% (training dataset) and 83.5% (testing dataset). • Testing the resulting A.I. classifier showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign breast lesions by up to 36.2%, p < .001 at the cost of up to 4.5% (n = 4) false negative low-risk cancers.

Project description:Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI.PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast.Study typeProspective, single center.PopulationWomen with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included.Field strength/sequence1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype.AssessmentThree, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard.Statistical testLesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics.ResultsIncluded were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%, P = 0.514).Data conclusionL-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.

Dataset Information

Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets