Cargando…
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance between noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) plus abdominal ultrasound (US) (NECT + US) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for the detection of hepatic metastasis in breast cancer patient with postsurgical...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9272726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35832367 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JMU.JMU_58_21 |
_version_ | 1784744933885739008 |
---|---|
author | Noh, Hee Yeon Ahn, Su Joa Nam, Sang Yu Jang, Young Rock Chun, Yong Soon Park, Heung Kyu Choi, Seung Joon Choi, Hye Young Kim, Jeong Ho |
author_facet | Noh, Hee Yeon Ahn, Su Joa Nam, Sang Yu Jang, Young Rock Chun, Yong Soon Park, Heung Kyu Choi, Seung Joon Choi, Hye Young Kim, Jeong Ho |
author_sort | Noh, Hee Yeon |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance between noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) plus abdominal ultrasound (US) (NECT + US) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for the detection of hepatic metastasis in breast cancer patient with postsurgical follow-up. METHODS: A total of 1470 patients without already diagnosed hepatic metastasis were included. All patients underwent US and multiphase CECT including the NECT. Independent reviewers analyzed images obtained in four settings, namely, abdominal US, NECT, NECT + US, and CECT and recorded liver metastases using a 5-grade scale of diagnostic confidence. Sensitivity, specificity (diagnostic performance), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, diagnostic confidence) were calculated. Interoperator agreement was calculated using the kappa test. RESULTS: Reference standards revealed no metastases in 1108/1470 patients, and metastasis was detected in 362/1470 patients. Abdominal US (P < 0.01) and NECT (P = 0.01) significantly differed from CECT, but NECT + US did not significantly differ from CECT in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.09), specificity (P = 0.5), and AUC (P = 0.43). After an additional review of abdominal US, readers changed the diagnostic confidence scores of 106 metastatic lesions diagnosed using NECT. Interobserver agreements were good or very good in all four settings. Additional review of abdominal US with NECT allowed a change in the therapeutic plan of 108 patients. CONCLUSION: Abdominal US + NECT showed better diagnostic performance for the detection of hepatic metastases than did NECT alone; its diagnostic performance and confidence were similar to those of CECT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9272726 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92727262022-07-12 Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer Noh, Hee Yeon Ahn, Su Joa Nam, Sang Yu Jang, Young Rock Chun, Yong Soon Park, Heung Kyu Choi, Seung Joon Choi, Hye Young Kim, Jeong Ho J Med Ultrasound Original Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance between noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) plus abdominal ultrasound (US) (NECT + US) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for the detection of hepatic metastasis in breast cancer patient with postsurgical follow-up. METHODS: A total of 1470 patients without already diagnosed hepatic metastasis were included. All patients underwent US and multiphase CECT including the NECT. Independent reviewers analyzed images obtained in four settings, namely, abdominal US, NECT, NECT + US, and CECT and recorded liver metastases using a 5-grade scale of diagnostic confidence. Sensitivity, specificity (diagnostic performance), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, diagnostic confidence) were calculated. Interoperator agreement was calculated using the kappa test. RESULTS: Reference standards revealed no metastases in 1108/1470 patients, and metastasis was detected in 362/1470 patients. Abdominal US (P < 0.01) and NECT (P = 0.01) significantly differed from CECT, but NECT + US did not significantly differ from CECT in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.09), specificity (P = 0.5), and AUC (P = 0.43). After an additional review of abdominal US, readers changed the diagnostic confidence scores of 106 metastatic lesions diagnosed using NECT. Interobserver agreements were good or very good in all four settings. Additional review of abdominal US with NECT allowed a change in the therapeutic plan of 108 patients. CONCLUSION: Abdominal US + NECT showed better diagnostic performance for the detection of hepatic metastases than did NECT alone; its diagnostic performance and confidence were similar to those of CECT. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9272726/ /pubmed/35832367 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JMU.JMU_58_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Medical Ultrasound https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Noh, Hee Yeon Ahn, Su Joa Nam, Sang Yu Jang, Young Rock Chun, Yong Soon Park, Heung Kyu Choi, Seung Joon Choi, Hye Young Kim, Jeong Ho Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer |
title | Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer |
title_full | Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer |
title_short | Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer |
title_sort | comparison of diagnostic performance and confidence between contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan and non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography plus abdomen ultrasound for hepatic metastasis in patients with breast cancer |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9272726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35832367 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JMU.JMU_58_21 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nohheeyeon comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT ahnsujoa comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT namsangyu comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT jangyoungrock comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT chunyongsoon comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT parkheungkyu comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT choiseungjoon comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT choihyeyoung comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer AT kimjeongho comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandconfidencebetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyscanandnoncontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyplusabdomenultrasoundforhepaticmetastasisinpatientswithbreastcancer |