Sudan Tang1, Chunhong Xiang1, Quan Yang1. 1. Department of Radiology, The Yongchuan Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Yongchuan District, Chongqing, PR China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an important method for breast cancer treatment. By monitoring its pathological response, the selection of clinical treatment strategies can be guided. In this study, the meta-analysis was used to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in detecting the pathological response of NAC. METHODS: Literatures associated to CE-MRI and CESM in the evaluation of pathological response of NAC were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, web of science, and EMBASE databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the SROC curve were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CE-MRI and CESM in monitoring the pathological response of NAC. RESULTS: There were 24 studies involved, 18 of which only underwent CE-MRI examination, three of which only underwent CESM examination, and three of which underwent both CE-MRI and CESM examination. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CE-MRI were 0.77 (95%CI, 0.67-0.84) and 0.82 (95%CI, 0.73-0.89), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CESM were 0.83 (95%CI, 0.66-0.93) and 0.82 (95%CI, 0.68-0.91), respectively. The AUCs of SROC curve for CE-MRI and CESM were 0.86 and 0.89, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CE-MRI, CESM has equal specificity, greater sensitivity and excellent performance, which may have a brighter prospect in evaluating the pathological response of breast cancer to NAC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CESM showed equal specificity, greater sensitivity, and excellent performance than CE-MRI.
OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an important method for breast cancer treatment. By monitoring its pathological response, the selection of clinical treatment strategies can be guided. In this study, the meta-analysis was used to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in detecting the pathological response of NAC. METHODS: Literatures associated to CE-MRI and CESM in the evaluation of pathological response of NAC were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, web of science, and EMBASE databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the SROC curve were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CE-MRI and CESM in monitoring the pathological response of NAC. RESULTS: There were 24 studies involved, 18 of which only underwent CE-MRI examination, three of which only underwent CESM examination, and three of which underwent both CE-MRI and CESM examination. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CE-MRI were 0.77 (95%CI, 0.67-0.84) and 0.82 (95%CI, 0.73-0.89), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CESM were 0.83 (95%CI, 0.66-0.93) and 0.82 (95%CI, 0.68-0.91), respectively. The AUCs of SROC curve for CE-MRI and CESM were 0.86 and 0.89, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CE-MRI, CESM has equal specificity, greater sensitivity and excellent performance, which may have a brighter prospect in evaluating the pathological response of breast cancer to NAC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CESM showed equal specificity, greater sensitivity, and excellent performance than CE-MRI.
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: A Fangberget; L B Nilsen; K H Hole; M M Holmen; O Engebraaten; B Naume; H-J Smith; D R Olsen; T Seierstad Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marc B I Lobbes; Ulrich C Lalji; Patty J Nelemans; Ivo Houben; Marjolein L Smidt; Esther Heuts; Bart de Vries; Joachim E Wildberger; Regina G Beets-Tan Journal: J Cancer Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: J Dose-Schwarz; R Tiling; S Avril-Sassen; S Mahner; A Lebeau; C Weber; M Schwaiger; F Jänicke; M Untch; N Avril Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Andrzej Lorek; Katarzyna Steinhof-Radwańska; Anna Barczyk-Gutkowska; Wojciech Zarębski; Piotr Paleń; Karol Szyluk; Joanna Lorek; Anna Grażyńska; Paweł Niemiec; Iwona Gisterek Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.677