Johannes Uhlig1,2, Annemarie Uhlig3, Lorenz Biggemann4, Uwe Fischer5, Joachim Lotz4,6, Susanne Wienbeck4. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. Johannes.uhlig@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. Johannes.uhlig@med.uni-goettingen.de. 3. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. 5. Diagnostic Breast Imaging Center, Goettingen, Germany. 6. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partnersite Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL libraries. Studies were included if reporting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions via breast CT. Sensitivity and specificity were jointly modeled using a bivariate approach calculating summary areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). All analyses were separately performed for non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NC-CBBCT, CE-CBBCT). RESULTS: A total of 362 studies were screened, of which 6 with 559 patients were included. All studies were conducted between 2015 and 2018 and evaluated female participants. Four of six studies included dense and very dense breasts with a high proportion of microcalcifications. For NC-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.789 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and pooled specificity was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.471-0.851), both showing considerable significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 89.4%, I2 = 94.7%, both p < 0.001). Partial AUC for NC-CBBCT was 0.817. For CE-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.899 (95% CI: 0.785-0.956) and pooled specificity was 0.788 (95% CI: 0.709-0.85), both exhibiting non-significant moderate between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 57.3%, p = 0.0527; I2 = 53.1%, p = 0.0738). Partial AUC for CE-CBBCT was 0.869. CONCLUSION: The evidence available for CBBCT tends to show superior diagnostic performance for CE-CBBCT over NC-CBBCT regarding sensitivity, specificity and partial AUC. Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CBBCT was numerically comparable to that of breast MRI with meta-analyses reporting sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.72. KEY POINTS: • CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy. • CE-CBBCT diagnostic performance was comparable to published results on breast MRI, thus qualifying CE-CBBCT as a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.
PURPOSE: To review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL libraries. Studies were included if reporting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions via breast CT. Sensitivity and specificity were jointly modeled using a bivariate approach calculating summary areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). All analyses were separately performed for non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NC-CBBCT, CE-CBBCT). RESULTS: A total of 362 studies were screened, of which 6 with 559 patients were included. All studies were conducted between 2015 and 2018 and evaluated female participants. Four of six studies included dense and very dense breasts with a high proportion of microcalcifications. For NC-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.789 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and pooled specificity was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.471-0.851), both showing considerable significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 89.4%, I2 = 94.7%, both p < 0.001). Partial AUC for NC-CBBCT was 0.817. For CE-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.899 (95% CI: 0.785-0.956) and pooled specificity was 0.788 (95% CI: 0.709-0.85), both exhibiting non-significant moderate between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 57.3%, p = 0.0527; I2 = 53.1%, p = 0.0738). Partial AUC for CE-CBBCT was 0.869. CONCLUSION: The evidence available for CBBCT tends to show superior diagnostic performance for CE-CBBCT over NC-CBBCT regarding sensitivity, specificity and partial AUC. Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CBBCT was numerically comparable to that of breast MRI with meta-analyses reporting sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.72. KEY POINTS: • CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy. • CE-CBBCT diagnostic performance was comparable to published results on breast MRI, thus qualifying CE-CBBCT as a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Massimo Bazzocchi; Chiara Zuiani; Pietro Panizza; Chiara Del Frate; Franca Soldano; Miriam Isola; Francesco Sardanelli; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Marie E Weswood; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick N M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-03-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba; Patrycja Baran; Yakov I Nesterets; Serena Pacile; Susanne Wienbeck; Christian Dullin; Konstantin Pavlov; Anton Maksimenko; Darren Lockie; Sheridan C Mayo; Harry M Quiney; Diego Dreossi; Fulvia Arfelli; Giuliana Tromba; Sarah Lewis; Timur E Gureyev; Patrick C Brennan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.315