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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |