Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Breast MRI: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI). Like breast MRI, CEM enables tumour visualization by contrast accumulation. CEM seems...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of Cancer Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 174 - 182
Main Authors Neeter, Lidewij M F H, Robbe, M M Quirien, van Nijnatten, Thiemo J A, Jochelson, Maxine S, Raat, H P J, Wildberger, Joachim E, Smidt, Marjolein L, Nelemans, Patty J, Lobbes, Marc B I
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Australia Ivyspring International Publisher 2023
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI). Like breast MRI, CEM enables tumour visualization by contrast accumulation. CEM seems to be a viable substitute for breast MRI. This systematic search assessed the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques in women with suspicious breast lesions on prior imaging or physical examination, who have undergone both breast MRI and CEM. CEM had to be performed on a commercially available system. The MRI sequence parameters had to be described sufficiently to ensure that standard breast MRI sequence protocols were used. Pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were estimated using bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for CEM and breast MRI were also constructed. Six studies (607 patients with 775 lesions) met the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 96% for CEM and 97% for breast MRI. Pooled specificity was 77% for both modalities. DOR was 79.5 for CEM and 122.9 for breast MRI. Between-study heterogeneity expressed as the -index was substantial with values over 80%. Pooled sensitivity was high for both CEM and breast MRI, with moderate specificity. The pooled DOR estimates, however, indicate higher overall diagnostic performance of breast MRI compared to CEM. Nonetheless, current scientific evidence is too limited to prematurely discard CEM as an alternative for breast MRI.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
JW received institutional grants from AGFA, Bayer Healthcare, Bard Medical, GE Healthcare, Optimed, Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers.
The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Competing Interests: MJ received a speaker's fee from GE Healthcare.
ML received a research grant and several speaker's fees from GE Healthcare, Tromp Medical, Bayer and Guerbet.
ISSN:1837-9664
1837-9664
DOI:10.7150/jca.79747