ArticleThe breast journal
Breast Cancer in the Elderly: Is MRI Helpful?
Article in The breast journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Change of paradigm in treating elderly with breast cancer: are we undertreating elderly patients?Irish journal of medical science · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Appropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in elderly breast cancer (BC) patients remains unclear; we sought to identify the indications and implications of MRI use in our elderly BC population. Women 70 years of age or older at first BC diagnosis with an MRI performed at our institution either perioperatively or in follow-up were included from a prospectively maintained database from 2000 to 2010. Univariate logistic regression was used to test associations with disease identified by MRI only (additional ipsilateral, contralateral, or new cancer) following perioperative MRI. 305 BCs were imaged in 286 patients. 133 were imaged with MRI in the perioperative setting alone, 88 had only follow-up MRIs after BC treatment, and 65 had both. Indications for perioperative MRI include: extent of disease evaluation (181; 91%); occult primary (10; 5%); high-risk screening (5; 3%); and abnormal physical exam with negative conventional imaging (2; 1%). Disease identified by MRI only for occult primary cases was 4/10 (40%; 95% confidence interval: 12.2-73.8%) and 14/181 (7.7%; 95% confidence interval: 4.3-12.6%) for perioperative MRIs performed for extent of disease evaluation. Analysis of imaging and tumor characteristics failed to find significant predictors of disease identified by MRI only. A total of 369 post-treatment follow-up MRIs were performed in 148 patients with a median of 2 MRIs per patient (range 1-8), with seven cases of disease identified by MRI only (1.9%; 95% confidence interval: 0.8-3.9%). MRI had the greatest benefit in women presenting with an occult primary cancer and minimal additional benefit in elderly patients with BC undergoing MRI imaging for extent of disease evaluation or in post-treatment surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.