Skip to main content

Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis



Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC.


We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000–2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity.


Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9–15; I2 = 10%), recall rate (PI 5–31%; I2 = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58–95%; I2 = 47%), specificity (PI 76–97%; I2 = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16–40%; I2 = 44%).


Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10



Personal history of breast cancer


Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium


Magnetic resonance imaging


  1. 1.

    American Cancer Society (2016) Cancer treatment & survivorship: facts & figures 2016–2017. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, p 44

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Howlader N et al (2016) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2013. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Howlader N et al (2012) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2009 (Vintage 2009 Publications). 2012. Accessed 16 Jan 2013

  4. 4.

    Lash TL et al (2007) Mammography surveillance and mortality in older breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 25(21):3001–3006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Houssami N et al (2009) Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol 20(9):1505–1510

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lu WL et al (2009) Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114(3):403–412

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lu W et al (2009) The value of surveillance mammography of the contralateral breast in patients with a history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 45(17):3000–3007

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sardanelli F et al (2016) Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol

  9. 9.

    Houssami N et al (2011) Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 305(8):790–799

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wernli KJ et al (2019) Surveillance breast MRI and mammography: comparison in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Radiology 292(2):311–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Quinn EM, Coveney AP, Redmond HP (2012) Use of magnetic resonance imaging in detection of breast cancer recurrence: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 19(9):3035–3041

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    American College of Radiology (2013) American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). American College of Radiology (ACR), Reston

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    American Cancer Society (2015) American Cancer Society recommendations for early breast cancer detection in women without breast symptoms. 2015 October 20. Accessed 1 December 2015

  14. 14.

    Liu Z et al (2013) A step-by-step guide to the systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic test accuracy evaluations. Br J Cancer 108(11):2299–2303

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Moher D et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Innovation VH. Covidence systematic review software

  17. 17.

    Whiting PF et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8):529–536

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ (2009) A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 172(1):137–159

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Berg WA et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299(18):2151–2163

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Brennan S et al (2010) Breast MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(2):510–516

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schacht DV et al (2014) Importance of a personal history of breast cancer as a risk factor for the development of subsequent breast cancer: results from screening breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(2):289–292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Cho N et al (2017) Breast cancer screening with mammography plus ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging in women 50 years or younger at diagnosis and treated with breast conservation therapy. JAMA Oncol 3(11):1495–1502

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Elmore L, Margenthaler JA (2010) Breast MRI surveillance in women with prior curative-intent therapy for breast cancer. J Surg Res 163(1):58–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Giess CS et al (2015) Screening breast MRI in patients previously treated for breast cancer: diagnostic yield for cancer and abnormal interpretation rate. Acad Radiol 22(11):1331–1337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gweon HM et al (2014) Breast MR imaging screening in women with a history of breast conservation therapy. Radiology 272(2):366–373

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lehman CD et al (2016) Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 108(3):349

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sippo DA et al (2019) Performance of screening breast MRI across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Radiology 292(1):51–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Weinstock C et al (2015) Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in breast cancer survivors. Springerplus 4:459

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Berg WA et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307(13):1394–1404

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Leeflang MM (2014) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy. Clin Microbiol Infect 20(2):105–113

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA (2001) A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 20(19):2865–2884

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Stroup DF et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM (2008) We should not pool diagnostic likelihood ratios in systematic reviews. Stat Med 27(5):687–697

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lee CH et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ahern CH et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for integrating MRI into breast cancer screening for women at high risk. Br J Cancer 111(8):1542–1551

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kramer S et al (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of local recurrences in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 18(3C):2159–2161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Preda L et al (2006) Magnetic resonance mammography in the evaluation of recurrence at the prior lumpectomy site after conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Res 8(5):R53

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Coulthard A, Beveridge CJ, Potterton AJ (1999) MRI in routine breast cancer follow-up: correlation with clinical outcome. Clin Radiol 54(7):459–461

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Arazi-Kleinman T et al (2013) JOURNAL CLUB: is screening MRI indicated for women with a personal history of breast cancer? Analysis based on biopsy results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(4):919–927

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rieber A et al (1997) Value of MR mammography in the detection and exclusion of recurrent breast carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21(5):780–784

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Viehweg P et al (1998) Retrospective analysis for evaluation of the value of contrast-enhanced MRI in patients treated with breast conservative therapy. MAGMA 7(3):141–152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Cuzick J et al (2010) Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 11(12):1135–1141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Dubsky PC et al (2012) Tamoxifen and anastrozole as a sequencing strategy: a randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer from the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 30(7):722–728

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G et al (2011) Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 378(9804):1707–1716

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Poggi MM et al (2003) Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: the National Cancer Institute Randomized Trial. Cancer 98(4):697–702

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Punglia RS, Hassett MJ (2010) Using lifetime risk estimates to recommend magnetic resonance imaging screening for breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 28(27):4108–4110

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Veronesi U et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Bassett LW et al (2008) National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(2):332–339

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Stout NK, Nekhlyudov L (2011) Early uptake of breast magnetic resonance imaging in a community-based medical practice, 2000-2004. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 20(4):631–634

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Wernli KJ et al (2014) Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice. JAMA Intern Med 174(1):125–132

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Khatcheressian JL et al (2006) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol 24(31):5091–5097

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Saslow D et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57(2):75–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Mainiero MB et al (2013) ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 10(1):11–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Khatcheressian JL et al (2013) Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(7):961–965

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E (2011) MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet 378(9805):1804–1811

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sickles EA (2010) The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 48(5):859–878

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Monticciolo DL et al (2018) Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 15(3):408–414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Buist DSM et al (2018) Breast biopsy intensity and findings following breast cancer screening in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer. JAMA Intern Med 178(4):458–468

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project Program Award (CE-1304-6656-Comparative effectiveness of surveillance imaging modalities in breast cancer survivors). The design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This publication was supported by grant number T32 CA094880 from the National Institute of Health. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCI, NIH.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cameron B. Haas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors CBH, LN, JML, SHJ, MB, DJ, CK, JS, SS, and KJW declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Dr Gleason owns stock in Radia Inc.

Research involving human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haas, C.B., Nekhlyudov, L., Lee, J.M. et al. Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 181, 255–268 (2020).

Download citation


  • Breast imaging
  • Diagnostic performance
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Systematic review
  • Meta-analysis