ArticlePloS one2019
Higher underestimation of tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-A concordance comparison cohort analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of pre-operative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting axillary lymph node metastasis: variations in intrinsic subtypes, and strategy to improve negative predictive value-an analysis of 2473 invasive breast cancer patients.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
- Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Evaluating Residual Breast Tissue After Robotic-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Women With Early Breast Cancer.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Accuracy of breast MRI in patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: comprehensive imaging analysis and correlation with clinical and pathological assessments.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI for detecting residual tumor and the tumor size whether it would be affected after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
methodsTotal 109 patients with NAC and 682 patients without NAC were included in this retrospective study. Measurement of the largest diameter of tumors at pathology was chosen as gold standard and compared with preoperative breast MRI. A concordance threshold of ±25% of maximal tumor size was used. The accuracy of MRI was graded as concordant, underestimation, or overestimation rate. Further subgroup analysis with tumor stages, histologic subgroups and intrinsic subtypes was performed.
resultsThe post-NAC MRI was associated with 92.5% sensitivity, 55.2% specificity, 85.1% positive predictive value, 72.7% negative predictive value, and overall 82.6% accuracy for detecting residual tumor. In determining tumor size, the overall concordance rates of the non-NAC group and the NAC group were 43.5% and 41.3%, respectively (p = 0.678). But the overestimation rate and underestimation rate were 26.6% and 32.1% for NAC group, and 52.9% and 3.5% for the non-NAC group (p<0.001). While in the subgroups analysis, the concordance rate of the NAC group (26.7%) was lower than that of the non-NAC group (82.1%) at T3 stage (p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between different tumor histologic subgroups and intrinsic subtypes.
conclusionsThe overall accuracy of MRI in predicting tumor size was not affected by NAC; however, it tends to underestimate tumor size after NAC, especially in patients with T3 lesions and above.
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.