Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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 (I²-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.

SUBMITTER: Gelardi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9406751 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Gelardi Fabrizia F Ragaini Elisa Maria EM Sollini Martina M Bernardi Daniela D Chiti Arturo A

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 20220804 8

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 usin ...[more]

PMID: 36010240

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExamining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts.MethodsWe evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy.ResultsScreen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone.ConclusionMRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA).Materials and methodsThis retrospective study included treatment-naïve patients with pathologically confirmed eCCA, who underwent both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP using extracellular contrast media between January 2015 and December 2020. Among the 214 patients (146 males; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years) included, 121 (56.5%) had perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. R0 resection was achieved in 108 of the 153 (70.6%) patients who underwent curative-intent surgery. Four fellowship-trained radiologists independently reviewed the findings of both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP to assess the local tumor extent and distant metastasis for determining resectability. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were compared using clinical, surgical, and pathological findings as reference standards. The interobserver agreement of resectability was evaluated using Fleiss kappa (κ).ResultsNo significant differences were observed between CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP in the pooled AUC (0.753 vs. 0.767), sensitivity (84.7% [366/432] vs. 90.3% [390/432]), and specificity (52.6% [223/424] vs. 51.4% [218/424]) (P > 0.05 for all). The AUC for determining resectability was higher when CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were reviewed together than when CECT was reviewed alone in patients with discrepancies between the imaging modalities or with indeterminate resectability (0.798 [0.754-0.841] vs. 0.753 [0.697-0.808], P = 0.014). The interobserver agreement for overall resectability was fair for both CECT (κ = 0.323) and CE-MRI with MRCP (κ = 0.320), without a significant difference (P = 0.884).ConclusionCECT and CE-MRI with MRCP showed no significant differences in the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement in determining the resectability in patients with eCCA.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets