Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123365›Full record

ArticleNPJ breast cancer2022

MRI to assess response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer subtypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

L M Janssen, B M den Dekker, K G A Gilhuijs, P J van Diest, E van der Wall, S G Elias

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. MR Imaging Features Predictive of Pathologic Complete Response and Survival Outcomes for Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L M JanssenImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. janssenliselore@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1157-8978
B M den DekkerDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
K G A GilhuijsImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P J van DiestDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E van der WallDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S G EliasJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to estimate and compare sensitivity, specificity, positive- (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting pathological complete remission (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with early-stage breast cancer. We stratified for molecular subtype by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and explored the impact of other factors. Two researchers systematically searched PUBMED and EMBASE to select relevant studies and extract data. For meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, we used bivariate random-effects models. Twenty-six included studies contained 4497 patients. There was a significant impact of IHC subtype on post-NAC MRI accuracy (p = 0.0082) for pCR. The pooled sensitivity was 0.67 [95% CI 0.58-0.74] for the HR-/HER2-, 0.65 [95% CI 0.56-0.73] for the HR-/HER2+, 0.55 [95% CI 0.45-0.64] for the HR+/HER2- and 0.60 [95% CI 0.50-0.70] for the HR+/HER2+ subtype. The pooled specificity was 0.85 [95% CI 0.81-0.88] for the HR-/HER2-, 0.81 [95% CI 0.74-0.86] for the HR-/HER2+, 0.88[95% CI 0.84-0.91] for the HR+/HER2- and 0.74 [95% CI 0.63-0.83] for the HR+/HER2+ subtype. The PPV was highest in the HR-/HER2- subtype and lowest in the HR+/HER2- subtype. MRI field strength of 3.0 T was associated with a higher sensitivity compared to 1.5 T (p = 0.00063). The accuracy of MRI for predicting pCR depends on molecular subtype, which should be taken into account in clinical practice. Higher MRI field strength positively impacts accuracy. When intervention trials based on MRI response evaluation are designed, the impact of IHC subtype and field strength on MR accuracy should be considered.

Identifiers

PMID36123365
PMCPMC9485124
OpenAlexW4296365919

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.