Cargando…
Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic ti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375655/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32540554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.005 |
_version_ | 1783561916130525184 |
---|---|
author | Suter, Matteo Basilio Pesapane, Filippo Agazzi, Giorgio Maria Gagliardi, Tania Nigro, Olga Bozzini, Anna Priolo, Francesca Penco, Silvia Cassano, Enrico Chini, Claudio Squizzato, Alessandro |
author_facet | Suter, Matteo Basilio Pesapane, Filippo Agazzi, Giorgio Maria Gagliardi, Tania Nigro, Olga Bozzini, Anna Priolo, Francesca Penco, Silvia Cassano, Enrico Chini, Claudio Squizzato, Alessandro |
author_sort | Suter, Matteo Basilio |
collection | PubMed |
description | Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%–91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%–93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%–88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7375655 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73756552020-07-29 Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis Suter, Matteo Basilio Pesapane, Filippo Agazzi, Giorgio Maria Gagliardi, Tania Nigro, Olga Bozzini, Anna Priolo, Francesca Penco, Silvia Cassano, Enrico Chini, Claudio Squizzato, Alessandro Breast Review Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%–91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%–93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%–88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available. Elsevier 2020-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7375655/ /pubmed/32540554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.005 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Suter, Matteo Basilio Pesapane, Filippo Agazzi, Giorgio Maria Gagliardi, Tania Nigro, Olga Bozzini, Anna Priolo, Francesca Penco, Silvia Cassano, Enrico Chini, Claudio Squizzato, Alessandro Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375655/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32540554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sutermatteobasilio diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT pesapanefilippo diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT agazzigiorgiomaria diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gagliarditania diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nigroolga diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bozzinianna diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT priolofrancesca diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT pencosilvia diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cassanoenrico diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chiniclaudio diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT squizzatoalessandro diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforbreastlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |