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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suter, Matteo Basilio, Pesapane, Filippo, Agazzi, Giorgio Maria, Gagliardi, Tania, Nigro, Olga, Bozzini, Anna, Priolo, Francesca, Penco, Silvia, Cassano, Enrico, Chini, Claudio, Squizzato, Alessandro
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