Literature DB >> 34904875

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance.

Andrea Cozzi1, Veronica Magni1, Moreno Zanardo1, Simone Schiaffino1, Francesco Sardanelli1.   

Abstract

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ2 = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34904875     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211412

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  4 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced Mammography: An Emerging Modality in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2022.

Authors:  Nina Ditsch; Achim Wöcke; Michael Untch; Christian Jackisch; Ute-Susann Albert; Maggie Banys-Paluchowski; Ingo Bauerfeind; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Wilfried Budach; Peter Dall; Eva Maria Fallenberg; Peter A Fasching; Tanja N Fehm; Michael Friedrich; Bernd Gerber; Oleg Gluz; Nadia Harbeck; Jörg Heil; Jens Huober; Hans H Kreipe; David Krug; Thorsten Kühn; Sherko Kümmel; Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke; Sibylle Loibl; Diana Lüftner; Michael Patrick Lux; Nicolai Maass; Christoph Mundhenke; Ulrike Nitz; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Toralf Reimer; Kerstin Rhiem; Achim Rody; Marcus Schmidt; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; Hans-Peter Sinn; Christine Solbach; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Isabell Witzel; Volkmar Müller; Wolfgang Janni; Marc Thill
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.268

3.  Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Marianna Fanizza; Veronica Magni; Laura Menicagli; Cristian Giuseppe Monaco; Adrienn Benedek; Diana Spinelli; Giovanni Di Leo; Giuseppe Di Giulio; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 7.034

4.  Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli; Francesca Caumo
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 6.639

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.