ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2023
Performance Benchmark Metrics and Clinicopathologic Outcomes of MRI-Guided Breast Biopsies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB): an essential but still underused technique.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine key performance metrics of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsies (MRGB) to help identify reference benchmarks. Materials and Methods: We identified studies reporting MRGB results up to 04.01.2021 in the Embase database, Ovid Medline (R) Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Medline (R) and completed a PRISMA checklist and sources of bias (QUADAS-2). The inclusion criteria were English language, available histopathological outcomes, or at least one imaging follow-up after biopsy. A random intercept logistic regression model was used to pool rates. Between-study heterogeneity was quantified by the I2 statistic. Results: A total of 11,215 lesions in 50 articles were analyzed. The technical success rate was 99.10% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97.89-99.62%]. The MRI indications were staging in 1,496 (28.05%, 95% CI: 26.85-29.28%), screening in 1,427 (26.76%, 95% CI: 25.57-27.97%), surveillance in 1,027 (19.26%, 95% CI: 18.21-20.34%), diagnostic in 1,038 (19.46%, 95% CI: 18.41-20.55%), unknown primary in 74 (1.39%, 95% CI: 1.09-1.74%), and other in 271 (5.08%, 95% CI: 4.51-5.71%). Histopathology was benign in 65.06% (95% CI: 59.15-70.54%), malignant in 29.64% (95% CI: 23.58-36.52%) and high risk in 16.69% (95% CI: 9.96-26.64%). Detection of malignancy was significantly lower in those patients who underwent MRI for screening purposes (odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.87; p = 0.02), while mass lesions were more likely to yield malignancy compared to non-mass and foci [27.39% vs 11.36% (non-mass),18.03% (foci); p<0.001]. Surgical upgrade to invasive cancer occurred in 12.24% of ductal carcinoma in situ (95% CI: 7.76-18.77%) and malignancy in 15.14% of high-risk lesions (95% CI: 10.69-21.17%). MRI follow-up was performed in 1,651 (20.92%) patients after benign results [median=25 months (range: 0.4-117)]. Radiology-pathology discordance (2.48%, 95% CI: 1.62-3.77%), false negative after a benign-concordant biopsy (0.75%, 95% CI: 0.34-1.62%) and biopsy complications (2.36%, 95% CI: 2.03-2.72%) were rare. Conclusion: MRGB is a highly accurate minimally-invasive diagnostic technique with low false-negative and complication rates. MRI indication and lesion type should be considered when evaluating the performance of institutional MRGB programs.
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.