Table 5 Results of different imaging sequences
From: The role of MRI in axillary lymph node imaging in breast cancer patients: a systematic review
First author, year | Prevalence N+ % | Sensitivity (95 % CI) | Specificity (95 % CI) | NPV (95 % CI) | PPV (95 % CI) | Accuracy (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Imaging sequences T1w/T2w | |||||||
Yoshimura et al. 1999 | 40.0 % | T1w | 79.0 % | 93.0 % | 87.0 % | 89.0 % | 88.0 % |
Scaranelo et al. 2012 | 43.0 % | T1w | 88.4 % (76–95) | 82.4 % (71–90) | 94.7 %* | 69.4 %* | 85.0 % (77–91) |
Li et al. 2014 | 42.0 % | T2*w | 94.6 % | 98.5 % | 95.0 % | 98.2 % | Not reported |
Median | 88.4 % | 93.0 % | 94.7 % | 89.0 % | 86.5 % | ||
Range | 79.0–94.6 % | 82.4–98.5 % | 87.0–95.0 % | 69.4–98.2 % | 85.0–88.0 % | ||
Imaging sequences DCE | |||||||
Kvistad et al. 2000 | 37.0 % | 83.0 % | 90.0 % | 90.0 % | 83.0 % | 88.0 % | |
Orguc et al. 2012 | 25.8 % | 89.0 % | 14.0 % | 80.0 %* | 21.4 %* | Not reported | |
He et al. 2012 | 12.0 % | Overall | 33.3–86.5 % | 95.2–98.2 % | 1.9–16.7 % | 66.7–82.6 % | Not reported |
Early stage enhancement rate** | 97.0 % | 73.5 % | 99.5 %* | 30.5 %* | Not reported | ||
Hwang et al. 2013 | 26.4 % | 47.8 % | 88.7 % | 82.6 % | 60.2 % | 77.9 % | |
Hieken et al. 2013 | 30.1 % | N0 with N0i+ | 54.2 % (46.6–61.6) | 78.2 % (73.2–82.5) | 75.7 % (70.7–80.1) | 57.7 % (49.9–65.2) | 69.7 % |
27.3 % | N0 without N0i+ | 57.2 % (49.1–64.9) | 78.2 % (73.2–82.5) | 78.9 % (74.0–83.2) | 56.2 % (48.2–63.9) | 71.3 % | |
Abe et al. 2013 | 32.0 % | T1w DCE | 60.0 % | 79.0 % | 81.0 % | 59.0 % | 74.0 % |
An et al. 2014 | 61.4 % | 67.5 % | 78.0 % | 79.2 % | 65.9 % | 74.0 % | |
Median | 60.0 % | 78.2 % | 80.0 % | 59.0 % | 74.0 % | ||
Range | 33.3–97.0 % | 14.0–98.2 % | 1.9–99.5 % | 21.4–83.0 % | 69.7–88.0 % | ||
Imaging sequences DWI | |||||||
Fornasa et al. 2012 | 44.2 % | Cutoff <1.09 × 10−3 mm2/s | 94.7 % | 91.7 % | 95.7 % | 90.0 % | 93.0 % |
He et al. 2012 | 12.0 % | Cutoff <1.35 × 10−3 mm2/s | 97.0 % | 54.5 % | 99.4 %* | 20.4 %* | Not reported |
Scaranelo et al. 2012 | 43.0 % | No cutoff value | 83.9 % (73–91) | 77.0 % (65–86) | 90.9 %* | 60.5 %* | 80.0 % (72–86) |
Luo et al. 2013 | 57.0 % | Cutoff <0.89 × 10−3 mm2/s | 82.2 % | 82.4 % | 77.8 % | 86.1 % | 82.3 % |
ADC ratio*** ≤1.097 | 84.4 % | 88.2 % | 81.1 % | 90.5 % | 86.1 % | ||
Kamitani et al. 2013 | 23.6 % | Cutoff <1.05 × 10−3 mm2/s | 53.8 % | 86.9 % | 85.9 % | 56.0 % | 79.1 % |
Cutoff <1.22 × 10−3 mm2/s | 75.6 % | 71.1 % | 90.2 % | 54.3 % | Not reported | ||
Basara et al. 2013 | 24.0 % | Cutoff <1.49 × 10−3 mm2/s | 95.6 % | 30.3 % | 95.6 % | 30.3 % | Not reported |
Median | 84.2 % | 79.7 % | 90.6 % | 58.3 % | 82.3 % | ||
Range | 53.8–97.0 % | 30.3–91.7 % | 77.8–99.4 % | 20.4–90.5 % | 79.1–93.0 % | ||
Imaging sequences T2*w USPIO | |||||||
Michel et al. 2002 | 61.1 % | Disease based | 82.0 % | 100 % | 78.0 % | 100.0 % | 89.0 % |
Two readers lymph node based | 73.0–83.0 % | 96.0–97.0 % | 97.0–98.0 % | 71.0–74.0 % | 94.0–95.0 % | ||
Harada et al. 2006 | 19.0 % | Combined study | 86.4 % | 97.5 % | 96.1 % | 91.1 % | 95.0 % |
Postcontrast | 84.7 % | 96.8 % | 95.6 % | 88.5 % | 94.0 % | ||
Median | 83.0 % | 97.0% | 95.9 % | 89.8 % | 94.3 % | ||
Range | 73.0–86.4 % | 96.0–100 % | 78.0–98.0 % | 71.0–100 % | 89.0–95.0 % | ||