Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 11;9(6):7088–7100. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23195

Table 4. Summary of meta-analyses focused on CE-MRI and DWI for the assessment of breast cancer responses to NAC.

Study Search date Comparative No. Technique PSEN(95% CI) PSPE(95% CI) DOR(95% CI) rDOR AUC (95% CI)
Wu [30] 2000 to 2012 Indirect comparative 30 CE-MRI 0.68 (0.57, 0.77) 0.91 (0.87, 0.94) 55.59 (21.80, 141.80) NR
6 DWI 0.93 (0.82, 0.97) 0.79 (0.74, 0.83) 20.99 (13.24, 33.25) 0.38 NR
Liu [31] 1992–2015 Indirect comparative 54 CE-MRI 0.68 (0.66, 0.78) 0.84 (0.80, 0.88) 13.82 (7.28,26.23) 0.88 (NR)
8 DWI 0.79 (0.68, 0.88) 0.75 (0.70, 0.80) 18.68 (6.88–50.73 1.35 0.87 (NR)
Our 2000 to 2017 Direct comparative 9 CE-MRI 0.84 (0.74, 0.91) 0.76(0.64, 0.85) 16.57 (9.80, 28.02) 0.88(0.84, 0.90)
9 DWI 0.89 (0.81, 0.93) 0.81(0.71, 0.89) 33.72 (13.93, 81.59) 2.04 0.91 (0.88, 0.93)

Notes: No.= no. of studies; PSEN = pooled sensitivities; PSPE = pooled specificities; DOR = diagnostic odds ratio; AUC= areas under the ROC curve; DWI = diffusion weighted imaging; CE-MRI = contrast-enhanced MRI; rDOR = the ratio of DOR value of DWI divided by DOR value of CE-MRI; NR = not reported.