Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29201942›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for predicting the response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis.

John Virostko, Allison Hainline, Hakmook Kang, Lori R Arlinghaus, Richard G Abramson, Stephanie L Barnes, Jeffrey D Blume, Sarah Avery, Debra Patt, Boone Goodgame and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

John VirostkoUniversity of Texas at Austin, Department of Diagnostics, Austin, Texas, United States.
Allison HainlineVanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Hakmook KangVanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Lori R ArlinghausVanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Richard G AbramsonVanderbilt University, Center for Quantitative Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Stephanie L BarnesUniversity of Texas at Austin, Institute for Computational and Engineering Sciences, Austin, Texas, United States.
Jeffrey D BlumeVanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Sarah AveryAustin Radiological Association, Austin, Texas, United States.
Debra PattTexas Oncology, Austin, Texas, United States.
Boone GoodgameSeton Hospital, Austin, Texas, United States.
Thomas E YankeelovUniversity of Texas at Austin, Department of Diagnostics, Austin, Texas, United States.
Anna G SoraceUniversity of Texas at Austin, Department of Diagnostics, Austin, Texas, United States.

Funding

Quantitative MRI for Predicting Response of Breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant TherapyU01CA142565 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI KARCZMAR, GREGORY S., NANDA, RITA · 2010 to 2019
$4.5M
Image Driven Multi-Scale Modeling to Predict Treatment Response in Breast CancerU01CA174706 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2018
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA142565NCI NIH HHS U01 CA174706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis assesses the prognostic value of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) performed during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) of locally advanced breast cancer. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies of quantitative DCE-MRI and DW-MRI performed during breast cancer NAT that report the sensitivity and specificity for predicting pathological complete response (pCR). Details of the study population and imaging parameters were extracted from each study for subsequent meta-analysis. Metaregression analysis, subgroup analysis, study heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed. Across 10 studies that met the stringent inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis (out of 325 initially identified studies), we find that MRI had a pooled sensitivity of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80 to 0.96] and specificity of 0.81(95% CI, 0.68 to 0.89) when adjusted for covariates. Quantitative DCE-MRI exhibits greater specificity for predicting pCR than semiquantitative DCE-MRI ([Formula: see text]). Quantitative DCE-MRI and DW-MRI are able to predict, early in the course of NAT, the eventual response of breast tumors, with a high level of specificity and sensitivity. However, there is a high degree of heterogeneity in published studies highlighting the lack of standardization in the field.

Indexed as

breast cancerdiffusion-weighted MRIdynamic contrast-enhanced MRImeta-analysisneoadjuvantresponse prediction

Identifiers

PMID29201942
PMCPMC5701084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.