ArticleNPJ breast cancer2020
Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging use and oncologic outcomes in premenopausal breast cancer patients.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of pre-operative MRI on the in-breast tumor recurrence rate of patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- How to optimise breast cancer staging with contrast-enhanced mammography: current evidence and clinical implications.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- The 19th St. Gallen international breast cancer conference 'primary therapy of patients with early breast cancer. Evidence, controversies, consensus': key moments and breakthroughs.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Article
- Northwestern University resource and education development initiatives to advance collaborative artificial intelligence across the learning health system.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- A Multi-institutional Analysis of Factors Influencing the Rate of Positive MRI Biopsy Among Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- miR-125 in Breast Cancer Etiopathogenesis: An Emerging Role as a Biomarker in Differential Diagnosis, Regenerative Medicine, and the Challenges of Personalized Medicine.Non-coding RNA · 2024Review
- Machine Learning for Lung Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).European radiology · 2022Observational
- A literature review on the imaging methods for breast cancer.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2022Review
- Deep learning for cancer type classification and driver gene identification.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging use and oncologic outcomes in premenopausal breast cancer patients.NPJ breast cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) delineates disease extent sensitively in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, but improved cancer outcomes are uncertain. Young women, for whom mammography is less sensitive, are expected to benefit from MRI-based resection. We identified 512 women aged ≤50 years, undergoing breast-conserving treatment (BCT: tumor-free resection margins and radiotherapy) during 2006-2013 through Northwestern Medicine database queries; 64.5% received preoperative MRI and 35.5% did not. Tumor and treatment parameters were similar between groups. We estimated the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for local and distant recurrences (LR and DR), using multivariable regression models, accounting for important therapeutic and prognostic parameters. LR rate with MRI use was 7.9 vs. 8.2% without MRI, aHR = 1.03 (95% CI 0.53-1.99). DR rate was 6.4 vs. 6.6%, aHR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.43-1.84). In 119 women aged ≤40, results were similar to LR aHR = 1.82 (95% CI 0.43-7.76) and DR aHR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.26-3.34). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. The use of preoperative MRI in women aged ≤50 years should be reconsidered until there is proof of benefit.
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.