Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41545805›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2026

Potential role of breast MRI to identify patients with high-risk lesions who might avoid surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Giulia Vatteroni, Nina Pirringer-Pötsch, Paola Clauser, Pascal A T Baltzer

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Giulia VatteroniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Nina Pirringer-PötschDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Treatment, High field Magnetic Resonance Center (HFMRC), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Paola ClauserDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Treatment, High field Magnetic Resonance Center (HFMRC), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Pascal A T BaltzerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Treatment, High field Magnetic Resonance Center (HFMRC), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3755-5398

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the added value of contrast-enhanced breast MRI (CE-MRI) to rule out malignancy in patients with high-risk (B3) lesions diagnosed at image-guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using predefined criteria. Eligible English-language articles published until August 2024 focused on CE-MRI in high-risk lesions. Two reviewers extracted data on true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN). Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratios were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Fagan nomograms identified the maximum pretest probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative MRI matched the 2% malignancy threshold used for downgrading BI-RADS 4 to 3. I² statistics and meta-regression explored heterogeneity. p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

resultsSeven studies comprising 479 patients with 493 high-risk lesions undergoing CE-MRI were included. The average breast cancer prevalence was 17% (88/493). Pooled sensitivity was 91.3% (95% CI: 82.8-95.8%) and pooled specificity was 68.8% (95% CI: 50.3-82.8%). Only 6/493 malignancies were missed by CE-MRI; all were small low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Fagan nomograms indicated that CE-MRI could rule out malignancy in lesions with pretest probabilities up to 13.1%.

conclusionsCE-MRI in assessing high-risk lesions may help identify patients who can safely avoid surgery, potentially reducing morbidity, anxiety, and healthcare resource use. Malignancy can be reliably ruled out in lesions with pretest probabilities ≤ 13.1%, although prospective studies are suggested for confirmation. KEY POINTS: Question Can contrast-enhanced breast MRI help to rule out malignancy in patients with high-risk lesions at imaging-guided biopsy, thereby supporting more tailored decisions and potentially reducing unnecessary surgical excisions? Findings Contrast-enhanced breast MRI may reduce unnecessary surgical or vacuum excisions in high-risk (B3) lesions. Missed cancers were limited to small low-grade DCIS. Clinical relevance Contrast-enhanced breast MRI may support the identification of patients with high-risk lesions who could potentially avoid surgery. This non-invasive approach has the potential to reduce overtreatment, healthcare costs, and patient anxiety, while maintaining a high negative predictive value.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingBreastClinical RelevanceContrast MediaFemaleHumansImage-Guided BiopsySensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaB3 lesionsBreast cancerLesions of uncertain malignant potentialMagnetic resonance imagingPatient management

Identifiers

PMID41545805
PMCPMC13212820

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.