Cargando…

Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Rationale and Objectives: Controversy still exists on the diagnosability of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) for breast lesions characterization across published studies. The clinical guideline of DTI used in the breast has not been established. This meta-analysis aims to pool relevant evidences and e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Kai, Li, Zhipeng, Wu, Zhifeng, Zheng, Yucong, Zeng, Sihui, E, Linning, Liang, Jianye
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6876668/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31803615
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01229
_version_ 1783473242676133888
author Wang, Kai
Li, Zhipeng
Wu, Zhifeng
Zheng, Yucong
Zeng, Sihui
E, Linning
Liang, Jianye
author_facet Wang, Kai
Li, Zhipeng
Wu, Zhifeng
Zheng, Yucong
Zeng, Sihui
E, Linning
Liang, Jianye
author_sort Wang, Kai
collection PubMed
description Rationale and Objectives: Controversy still exists on the diagnosability of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) for breast lesions characterization across published studies. The clinical guideline of DTI used in the breast has not been established. This meta-analysis aims to pool relevant evidences and evaluate the diagnostic performance of DTI in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Materials and Methods: The studies that assessed the diagnostic performance of DTI parameters in the breast were searched in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library between January 2010 and September 2019. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and three diffusion eigenvalues (λ1, λ2, and λ3) were calculated using Review Manager 5.2. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated with a bivariate model. Publication bias and heterogeneity between studies were also assessed using Stata 12.0. Results: Sixteen eligible studies incorporating 1,636 patients were included. The standardized mean differences indicated that breast cancers had a significantly higher FA but lower MD, λ1, λ2, and λ3 than those of benign lesions (all P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that invasive breast carcinoma (IBC) had a significantly lower MD value than that of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P = 0.02). λ1 showed the best diagnostic accuracy with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 93%, 92%, and 0.97, followed by MD (AUC = 0.92, sensitivity = 87%, specificity = 83%) and FA (AUC = 0.76, sensitivity = 70%, specificity = 70%) in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Conclusion: DTI with multiple quantitative parameters was adequate to differentiate breast cancers from benign lesions based on their biological characteristics. MD can further distinguish IBC from DCIS. The parameters, especially λ1 and MD, should attract our attention in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6876668
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68766682019-12-04 Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Wang, Kai Li, Zhipeng Wu, Zhifeng Zheng, Yucong Zeng, Sihui E, Linning Liang, Jianye Front Oncol Oncology Rationale and Objectives: Controversy still exists on the diagnosability of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) for breast lesions characterization across published studies. The clinical guideline of DTI used in the breast has not been established. This meta-analysis aims to pool relevant evidences and evaluate the diagnostic performance of DTI in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Materials and Methods: The studies that assessed the diagnostic performance of DTI parameters in the breast were searched in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library between January 2010 and September 2019. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and three diffusion eigenvalues (λ1, λ2, and λ3) were calculated using Review Manager 5.2. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated with a bivariate model. Publication bias and heterogeneity between studies were also assessed using Stata 12.0. Results: Sixteen eligible studies incorporating 1,636 patients were included. The standardized mean differences indicated that breast cancers had a significantly higher FA but lower MD, λ1, λ2, and λ3 than those of benign lesions (all P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that invasive breast carcinoma (IBC) had a significantly lower MD value than that of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P = 0.02). λ1 showed the best diagnostic accuracy with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 93%, 92%, and 0.97, followed by MD (AUC = 0.92, sensitivity = 87%, specificity = 83%) and FA (AUC = 0.76, sensitivity = 70%, specificity = 70%) in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Conclusion: DTI with multiple quantitative parameters was adequate to differentiate breast cancers from benign lesions based on their biological characteristics. MD can further distinguish IBC from DCIS. The parameters, especially λ1 and MD, should attract our attention in clinical practice. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6876668/ /pubmed/31803615 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01229 Text en Copyright © 2019 Wang, Li, Wu, Zheng, Zeng, E and Liang. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Wang, Kai
Li, Zhipeng
Wu, Zhifeng
Zheng, Yucong
Zeng, Sihui
E, Linning
Liang, Jianye
Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
title Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
title_full Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
title_short Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
title_sort diagnostic performance of diffusion tensor imaging for characterizing breast tumors: a comprehensive meta-analysis
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6876668/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31803615
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01229
work_keys_str_mv AT wangkai diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis
AT lizhipeng diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis
AT wuzhifeng diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis
AT zhengyucong diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis
AT zengsihui diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis
AT elinning diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis
AT liangjianye diagnosticperformanceofdiffusiontensorimagingforcharacterizingbreasttumorsacomprehensivemetaanalysis