BACKGROUND/AIMS: We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to investigate and compare the diagnostic value of 19 different imaging methods used for breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched to collect the relevant literature from the inception of the study until November 2016. A combination of direct and indirect comparisons was performed using an NMA to evaluate the combined odd ratios (OR) and draw the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for BC. RESULTS: A total of 39 eligible diagnostic tests regarding 19 imaging methods (mammography [MG], breast-specific gamma imaging [BSGI], color Doppler sonography [CD], contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging [CE-MRI], digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT], fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography [FDG PET/CT], fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography [FDG-PET], full field digital mammography [FFDM], handheld breast ultrasound [HHUS], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], automated breast volume scanner [ABUS], magnetic resonance mammography [MRM], scintimammography [SMM], single photon emission computed tomography scintimammography [SPECT SMM], ultrasound elastography [UE], ultrasonography [US], mammography + ultrasonography [MG + US], mammography + scintimammography [MG + SMM], and ultrasound elastography + ultrasonography [UE + US]) were included in the study. According to this network meta-analysis, in comparison to the MG method, the CE-MRI, MRI, MRM, MG + SMM and UE + US methods exhibited relatively higher sensitivity, and the specificity of the FDG PET/CT method was higher, while the BSGI and MRI methods exhibited higher accuracy. CONCLUSION: The results from this NMA indicate that the diagnostic value of the BSGI, MG + SMM, MRI and CE-MRI methods for BC were relatively higher in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to investigate and compare the diagnostic value of 19 different imaging methods used for breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched to collect the relevant literature from the inception of the study until November 2016. A combination of direct and indirect comparisons was performed using an NMA to evaluate the combined odd ratios (OR) and draw the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for BC. RESULTS: A total of 39 eligible diagnostic tests regarding 19 imaging methods (mammography [MG], breast-specific gamma imaging [BSGI], color Doppler sonography [CD], contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging [CE-MRI], digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT], fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography [FDG PET/CT], fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography [FDG-PET], full field digital mammography [FFDM], handheld breast ultrasound [HHUS], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], automated breast volume scanner [ABUS], magnetic resonance mammography [MRM], scintimammography [SMM], single photon emission computed tomography scintimammography [SPECT SMM], ultrasound elastography [UE], ultrasonography [US], mammography + ultrasonography [MG + US], mammography + scintimammography [MG + SMM], and ultrasound elastography + ultrasonography [UE + US]) were included in the study. According to this network meta-analysis, in comparison to the MG method, the CE-MRI, MRI, MRM, MG + SMM and UE + US methods exhibited relatively higher sensitivity, and the specificity of the FDG PET/CT method was higher, while the BSGI and MRI methods exhibited higher accuracy. CONCLUSION: The results from this NMA indicate that the diagnostic value of the BSGI, MG + SMM, MRI and CE-MRI methods for BC were relatively higher in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.
Authors: Jorianne Boers; Erik F J de Vries; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Geke A P Hospers; Carolina P Schröder Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.075