A meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI and a full diagnostic protocol in breast cancer.

AIM: To undertake a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of abbreviated (ABB) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and full diagnostic protocol MRI (FDP-MRI) in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched through August 2019 for studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ABB-MRI and FDP-MRI in the breast. Studies were reviewed by two authors independently according to eligibility and exclusion criteria and split into two subgroups (screening population studies and studies using cohorts enriched with known cancers) to avoid bias. Quality assessment and bias for diagnostic accuracy was determined with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). The diagnostic accuracy for each subgroup was pooled using a bivariate random effects model and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves produced. Sensitivities and specificities were compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: Five screening (62/2,588 cancers/patients) and eight enriched cohort (540/1,432 cancers/patients) studies were included in the meta-analysis. QUADAS-2 assessment showed a low risk of bias in most studies. The pooled sensitivity/specificity/area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for screening studies was 0.90/0.92/0.94 for ABB-MRI and 0.92/0.95/0.97 for FDP-MRI. The pooled sensitivity/specificity/AUC for enriched cohort studies was 0.93/0.83/0.94 for ABB-MRI and 0.93/0.84/0.95 for FDP-MRI. There was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity using ABB-MRI or FDP-MRI (p=0.18 and 0.27, p=0.18 and 0.93, respectively). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performances of the ABB-MRI and FDP-MRI protocols used in either screening or enriched cohorts were comparable. There was a large variation in patient population, study methodology, and abbreviated protocols reported.

Personalised screening: is this the way forward?

Screening with mammography has been implemented in many countries across the world with most offering 2-yearly examinations between the ages of 50-69 years. Robust modelling tools that include breast density and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been developed to predict which women are most likely to develop breast cancer. Mammographic sensitivity is poor in women with the densest category of breast tissue, and even women with heterogeneously dense tissue may benefit from additional supplemental imaging. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated (ABB) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) all offer the opportunity to increase cancer detection, especially in women with dense breasts at increased risk of cancer. DBT increases cancer detection by around 15% with a corresponding reduction in recall rates; ABUS has been shown to increase cancer detection by between 2-4/1,000 depending on the cohort being examined and results in increased recalls, which tend to fall in subsequent screening rounds; CESM has very high sensitivity almost matching MRI with slightly improved specificity; ABB-MRI has been shown to be virtually equivalent to standard protocol MRI examinations, making this a technique that could be considered as a screening tool in high-risk women. This article reviews the literature to establish the current status of these techniques. The cost-effectiveness of these techniques requires further investigation and screening trials should report the nature of any additional tumours that are found.