Marinovich Michael L, Macaskill Petra, Irwig Les, Sardanelli Francesco, Mamounas Eleftherios, von Minckwitz Gunter, Guarneri Valentina, Partridge Savannah C, Wright Frances C, Choi Jae Hyuck, Bhattacharyya Madhumita, Martincich Laura, Yeh Eren, Londero Viviana, Houssami Nehmat
Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, A27, Edward Ford Building, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Unità di Radiologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Piazza E. Malan 2, San Donato Milanese, Milano, Italy.
BMC Cancer. 2015 Oct 8;15:662. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1664-4.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide breast cancer surgery by measuring residual tumor size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Accurate measurement may avoid overly radical surgery or reduce the need for repeat surgery. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis examines MRI's agreement with pathology in measuring the longest tumor diameter and compares MRI with alternative tests.
A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Heath Technology Assessment, and Cochrane databases identified eligible studies. Primary study authors supplied IPD in a template format constructed a priori. Mean differences (MDs) between tests and pathology (i.e. systematic bias) were calculated and pooled by the inverse variance method; limits of agreement (LOA) were estimated. Test measurements of 0.0 cm in the presence of pathologic residual tumor, and measurements >0.0 cm despite pathologic complete response (pCR) were described for MRI and alternative tests.
Eight studies contributed IPD (N = 300). The pooled MD for MRI was 0.0 cm (LOA: +/-3.8 cm). Ultrasound underestimated pathologic size (MD: -0.3 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.1 cm), with comparable LOA. MDs were similar for MRI (0.1 cm) and mammography (0.0 cm), with wider LOA for mammography. Clinical examination underestimated size (MD: -0.8 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.0 cm), with wider LOA. Tumors "missed" by MRI typically measured 2.0 cm or less at pathology; tumors >2.0 cm were more commonly "missed" by clinical examination (9.3 %). MRI measurements >5.0 cm occurred in 5.3 % of patients with pCR, but were more frequent for mammography (46.2 %).
There was no systematic bias in MRI tumor measurement, but LOA are large enough to be clinically important. MRI's performance was generally superior to ultrasound, mammography, and clinical examination, and it may be considered the most appropriate test in this setting. Test combinations should be explored in future studies.
磁共振成像(MRI)可通过测量新辅助化疗(NAC)后残留肿瘤大小来指导乳腺癌手术。准确测量可避免过度激进的手术或减少再次手术的需求。这项个体患者数据(IPD)荟萃分析检验了MRI在测量肿瘤最长直径方面与病理结果的一致性,并将MRI与其他检测方法进行比较。
对MEDLINE、EMBASE、PREMEDLINE、循证医学数据库、卫生技术评估数据库和Cochrane数据库进行系统评价,以确定符合条件的研究。主要研究作者以预先构建的模板格式提供IPD。计算检测结果与病理结果之间的平均差异(MD)(即系统偏差),并采用逆方差法进行汇总;估计一致性界限(LOA)。描述了MRI和其他检测方法在病理残留肿瘤存在时测量值为0.0 cm,以及在病理完全缓解(pCR)时测量值>0.0 cm的情况。
八项研究提供了IPD(N = 300)。MRI的汇总MD为0.0 cm(LOA:±3.8 cm)。相对于MRI(MD:0.1 cm),超声低估了病理大小(MD:-0.3 cm),LOA相当。MRI(0.1 cm)和乳腺X线摄影(0.0 cm)的MD相似,但乳腺X线摄影的LOA更宽。相对于MRI(MD:0.0 cm),临床检查低估了大小(MD:-0.8 cm),LOA更宽。MRI“漏诊”的肿瘤在病理检查时通常测量为2.0 cm或更小;>2.0 cm的肿瘤更常被临床检查“漏诊”(9.3%)。5.3%的pCR患者MRI测量值>5.0 cm,但乳腺X线摄影更为常见(46.2%)。
MRI肿瘤测量中没有系统偏差,但LOA大到具有临床重要性。MRI的性能通常优于超声、乳腺X线摄影和临床检查,在这种情况下可被认为是最合适的检测方法。未来研究应探索检测组合。