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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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