Cargando…

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gelardi, Fabrizia, Ragaini, Elisa Maria, Sollini, Martina, Bernardi, Daniela, Chiti, Arturo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36010240
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890
_version_ 1784774197764947968
author Gelardi, Fabrizia
Ragaini, Elisa Maria
Sollini, Martina
Bernardi, Daniela
Chiti, Arturo
author_facet Gelardi, Fabrizia
Ragaini, Elisa Maria
Sollini, Martina
Bernardi, Daniela
Chiti, Arturo
author_sort Gelardi, Fabrizia
collection PubMed
description Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Methods: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms “breast cancer”, “preoperative staging”, “contrast-enhanced mammography”, “contrast-enhanced spectral mammography”, “contrast enhanced digital mammography”, “contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging” “CEM”, “CESM”, “CEDM”, and “CE-MRI”. We selected only those papers comparing the clinical efficacy of CEM and CE-MRI. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. The pooled sensitivities and specificity of CEM and CE-MRI were computed using a random-effects model directly from the STATA “metaprop” command. The between-study statistical heterogeneity was tested (I(2)-statistics). Results: Nineteen studies were selected for this systematic review. Fifteen studies (1315 patients) were included in the metanalysis. Both CEM and CE-MRI detect breast lesions with a high sensitivity, without a significant difference in performance (97% and 96%, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the potential of CEM as a supplemental screening imaging modality, even for intermediate-risk women, including females with dense breasts and a history of breast cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9406751
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94067512022-08-26 Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Gelardi, Fabrizia Ragaini, Elisa Maria Sollini, Martina Bernardi, Daniela Chiti, Arturo Diagnostics (Basel) Systematic Review Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Methods: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms “breast cancer”, “preoperative staging”, “contrast-enhanced mammography”, “contrast-enhanced spectral mammography”, “contrast enhanced digital mammography”, “contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging” “CEM”, “CESM”, “CEDM”, and “CE-MRI”. We selected only those papers comparing the clinical efficacy of CEM and CE-MRI. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. The pooled sensitivities and specificity of CEM and CE-MRI were computed using a random-effects model directly from the STATA “metaprop” command. The between-study statistical heterogeneity was tested (I(2)-statistics). Results: Nineteen studies were selected for this systematic review. Fifteen studies (1315 patients) were included in the metanalysis. Both CEM and CE-MRI detect breast lesions with a high sensitivity, without a significant difference in performance (97% and 96%, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the potential of CEM as a supplemental screening imaging modality, even for intermediate-risk women, including females with dense breasts and a history of breast cancer. MDPI 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9406751/ /pubmed/36010240 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Gelardi, Fabrizia
Ragaini, Elisa Maria
Sollini, Martina
Bernardi, Daniela
Chiti, Arturo
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36010240
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890
work_keys_str_mv AT gelardifabrizia contrastenhancedmammographyversusbreastmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ragainielisamaria contrastenhancedmammographyversusbreastmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sollinimartina contrastenhancedmammographyversusbreastmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bernardidaniela contrastenhancedmammographyversusbreastmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chitiarturo contrastenhancedmammographyversusbreastmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis