Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Getu Ferenji Tadesse,Eyachew Misganew Tegaw,Ejigu Kebede Abdisa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3

2023-01-26

Journal of Ultrasound

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Diagnostic Evaluations of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mammary Duct Ectasia and Breast Cancer

Lei Song,Liang Li,Bin Liu,Dexin Yu,Fengguo Sun,Mingming Guo,Zhengmin Ruan,Feixue Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7514

2018-01-01

Oncology Letters

Abstract:The objective of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia (MDE) and breast cancer. This retrospective study was performed on 35 patients with MDE and 105 patients with breast cancer using US and MRI. Imaging features, semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters were analyzed to determine their diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer. The average age of patients with breast cancer was increased compared with that of patients with MDE. There were no significant differences in local packages with or without tenderness ratio (P=0.259) and grade of color Doppler flow imaging (P=0.273) between the two groups. However, the morphological changes were significantly increased in breast cancer compared with MDE. In addition, there were significant diagnostic differences in US and MRI between breast cancer and MDE, including resistance index, US elastography, time-signal intensity curve, apparent diffusion coefficient, early-stage enhancement ratio, peak-of-enhancement ratio and T-peak (P<0.05). However, there were no observable significant diagnostic differences between US, MRI and US with MRI for MDE and breast cancer (P=0.103, P=0.263 and P=0.403 respectively). Diagnosis of MDE and breast cancer requires full evaluation of multiple parameters and morphological changes of US and MRI to increase the diagnostic efficiency. US, MRI and US with MRI were all of diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer, while US with MRI had the highest efficacy.
Diagnostic Performance of Adjunctive Imaging Modalities Compared to Mammography Alone in Women with Non-Dense and Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ibrahim Hadadi,William Rae,Jillian Clarke,Mark McEntee,Ernest Ekpo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2021.03.006

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of mammography (MG) alone versus MG combined with adjunctive imaging modalities, including handheld ultrasound (HHUS), automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with non-dense and dense breasts. Patients and methods: Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases were searched up to October 2019. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the studies. Results: In dense breasts, adding adjunctive modalities significantly increased cancer detection rates (CDRs): HHUS (relative risk [RR] = 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.86; P = .0005); ABUS (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.16-1.78; P = .0008); DBT (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.67; P = .001); CEM (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P = .003); and MRI (RR = 2.16; 95% CI, 1.81-2.58; P < .00001). The recall rate was significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.89-2.17; P < .00001), ABUS (RR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.81-1.99; P < .00001), and MRI (RR = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.73-4.25; P < .0001), but not by DBT (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.36; P = .15). In non-dense breasts, HHUS and MRI showed significant increases in CDRs but not DBT: HHUS (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .04); MRI (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.14-2.77; P = .01); and DBT (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.13-1.75; P = .08). The recall rate was also significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-1.59; P < .00001) and MRI (RR = 3.01; 95% CI, 1.68-5.39; P = .0002), whereas DBT showed a non-significant reduction (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05; P = .12). Conclusion: Adding adjunctive modalities to MG increases CDRs in women with dense and non-dense breasts. Ultrasound and MRI increase recall rates across all breast densities; however, MRI results in higher values for both CDRs and recall rates.
Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lei Yang,Shengfeng Wang,Liwen Zhang,Chao Sheng,Fengju Song,Ping Wang,Yubei Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06992-1

IF: 4.638

2020-01-01

BMC Cancer

Abstract:To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (P-US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental ultrasound (S-US) screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM). Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for P-US or S-US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), proportion of invasive cancers among screening-detected cancers (ProIC), and proportion of node-negative cancers among screening-detected invasive cancers (ProNNIC). Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which S-US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both primary MAM (P-MAM) and P-US were used. Meta-analyses revealed that S-US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82 to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 93% (95% CIs: 89 to 96%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 3.0/1000 (95% CIs: 1.8/1000 to 4.6/1000), RR of 8.8% (95% CIs: 5.0 to 13.4%), BR of 3.9% (95% CIs: 2.7 to 5.4%), ProIC of 73.9% (95% CIs: 49.0 to 93.7%), and ProNNIC of 70.9% (95% CIs: 46.0 to 91.6%). Compared with P-MAM screening, P-US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.5% (95% CIs:0.6 to 2.3%), P = 0.001] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [16.3% (95% CIs: 10.6 to 22.1%), P < 0.001]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNNIC. Current evidence suggests that S-US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM. P-US screening has shown to be comparable to P-MAM screening in women with dense breasts in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but with higher recall rates and higher detection rates for invasive cancers.
Diagnostic Efficacy of Five Different Imaging Modalities in the Assessment of Women Recalled at Breast Screening—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Judith Akwo,Ibrahim Hadadi,Ernest Ekpo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16203505

2024-10-18

Cancers

Abstract:There are variations in the assessment pathways for women recalled at screening, and the imaging assessment pathway with the best diagnostic outcome is poorly understood. This paper examines the efficacy of five imaging modalities for the assessment of screen-recalled breast lesions. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) strategy was employed to identify studies that assessed the efficacy of imaging modalities in the assessment of lesions recalled at screening from the following eight databases: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, CINAHL, and Global Health. Search terms included "Breast assessment" AND "Diagnostic Workup" OR "Mammography" AND "Digital Breast tomosynthesis" AND "contrast enhanced mammography and Magnetic Resonance imaging" AND "breast ultrasound". Studies that examined the performance of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), handheld ultrasound (HHUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screen-recalled lesions were reviewed. Meta-analyses of these studies were conducted using the MetaDisc 2.0 software package. Results: Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and examined between one and three imaging modalities. Pooled results of each imaging modality demonstrated that CEM has the highest sensitivity (95; 95% CI: 90–97) followed by MRI (93; 95% CI: 88–96), DBT (91; 95% CI: 87–94), HHUS (90; 95% CI: 86–93), and DM (85; 95% CI: 78–90). The DBT demonstrated the highest specificity (85; 95% CI: 75–91) followed by DM (77; 95% CI: 66–85), CEM (73; 95% CI: 63–81), MRI (69; 95% CI: 55–81), and HHUS (65; 95% CI: 46–80). Conclusions: The CEM, MRI, DBT, and HHUS demonstrate excellent performance in correctly identifying and classifying cancer lesions referred for diagnostic work-up, but HHUS, MRI, and CEM have a more limited ability to discriminate benign lesions than DBT and DM.

oncology
Ultrasound‐based radiomics for the differential diagnosis of breast masses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Xuerong Li,Longfang Zhang,Manni Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.23690

2024-04-13

Journal of Clinical Ultrasound

Abstract:In this work, we evaluated the value of ultrasound‐based radiomics in breast for discriminating benign and malignant breast masses. This is the first meta‐analysis investigates the diagnostic performance of ultrasound‐based radiomics technique on the identification of benign and malignant diseases. Objectives Ultrasound‐based radiomics has demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Given a few clinical studies on their diagnostic role, we conducted a meta‐analysis of the potential effects of ultrasound‐based radiomics for the differential diagnosis of breast masses, aiming to provide evidence‐based medical basis for clinical research. Materials and Methods We searched Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases from inception through to February 2023. The methodological quality assessment of the included studies was performed according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve delineating benign and malignant lesions were recorded. We also used sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Deeks' funnel plots was used to examine the publication bias. Results A total of 11 studies were included in this meta‐analysis. For the diagnosis of malignant breast masses worldwide, the overall mean rates of sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound‐based radiomics were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–0.95) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82–0.94), respectively. The summary diagnostic odds ratio was 76 (95% CI, 26–219), and the area under the curve for the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93–0.97). Conclusion Ultrasound‐based radiomics has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy to discriminate between benign and malignant breast masses, and could reduce unnecessary biopsies.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,acoustics
Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer

Liu,J.,Xiao,R.,Yin,H.,Hu,Y.,Zhen,S.,Zhou,S.,Han,D.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069788

IF: 3.006

2024-09-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective The objective is to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Design Data sources PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries up to 18 June 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included trials studies, compared the results of different researchers on CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, and calculated the diagnostic value of CESM for breast cancer. Data extraction and synthesis Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) evaluated the methodological quality of all the included studies. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses specification. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, other important parameters were explored in an analysis of CESM accuracy for breast cancer diagnosis. For overall accuracy estimation, summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. STATA V.14.0 was used for all analyses. Results This meta-analysis included a total of 12 studies. According to the summary estimates for CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.85), respectively. Positive likelihood ratio was 4.03 (95% CI 2.65 to 6.11), negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.09) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 89.49 (95% CI 45.78 to 174.92). Moreover, there was a 0.95 area under the curve. Conclusions The CESM has high sensitivity and good specificity when it comes to evaluating breast cancer, particularly in women with dense breasts. Thus, provide more information for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

medicine, general & internal
Evaluating the role and diagnostic performance of ultrasound in diagnosing soft tissue tumors and pseudotumors in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yufei Zhang Shijie Mao Fangfang Zhang Department Ultrasound,Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital/Shanxi Hospital Affiliated to Cancer Hospital,Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences/Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shanxi Medical University,Taiyuan,Shanxi,China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2393349

IF: 3.439

2024-08-29

Expert Review of Medical Devices

Abstract:Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the combined accuracy of ultrasonic imaging in diagnosing soft tissue tumors and pseudotumors and identifies factors contributing to variability in its diagnostic accuracy.

engineering, biomedical
Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography and head-to-head comparison of digital mammography, magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam breast computed tomography for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wenye Gong,Jingjin Zhu,Chenyan Hong,Xiaohan Liu,Shuaiqi Li,Yizhu Chen,Boya Zhang,Xiru Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-23-153

2023-10-29

Gland Surgery

Abstract:Keywords: Breast cancer; cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT); digital mammography (DM); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); meta-analysis

surgery
Preoperative Prediction Power of Radiomics for Breast Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhenkai Li,Juan Ye,Hongdi Du,Ying Cao,Ying Wang,Desen Liu,Feng Zhu,Hailin Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.837257

IF: 4.7

2022-01-01

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Background: To evaluate the preoperative predictive value of radiomics in the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC).& nbsp;Methods: By searching PubMed and Embase libraries, our study identified 19 eligible studies. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the differential value in the preoperative assessment of BC using radiomics methods.& nbsp;Results: Nineteen radiomics studies focusing on the diagnostic efficacy of BC and involving 5865 patients were enrolled. The integrated sensitivity and specificity were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87, I-2 = 76.44%) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87, I-2 = 81.79%), respectively. The AUC based on the SROC curve was 0.91, indicating a high diagnostic value.& nbsp;Conclusion: Radiomics has shown excellent diagnostic performance in the preoperative prediction of BC and is expected to be a promising method in clinical practice.
Deep learning-based computer-aided detection of ultrasound in breast cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

H Li,J Zhao,Z Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2024.08.002

2024-08-08

Abstract:Purpose: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL) and ultrasound in breast cancer diagnosis. Additionally, we categorized the included studies into two subgroups: B-mode ultrasound diagnostic subgroup and multimodal ultrasound diagnostic subgroup, and compared the performance differences of DL algorithms in breast cancer diagnosis using only B-mode ultrasound or multimodal ultrasound. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search for relevant studies published from January 01, 2017 to July 31, 2023 in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool and radiomics quality scores (RQS). Meta-analysis was performed using R software. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed by I^2 values and Q-test P-values, with sources of heterogeneity analyzed through a random effects model based on test results. Summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curves were used for meta-analysis across multiple trials, while combined sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were calculated to quantify prediction accuracy. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analyses were also conducted to identify potential sources of study heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot method. (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42024545758). Results: The 20 studies included a total of 14,955 cases, with 4197 cases used for model testing. Among these cases were 1582 breast cancer patients and 2615 benign or other breast lesions. The combined sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values across all studies were found to be 0.93, 0.90, and 0.732, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the multimodal subgroup demonstrated superior performance with combined sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of 0.93, 0.88, and 0.787, respectively; whereas the combined sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for the model B subgroup was at a level of 0.92, 0.91, and 0.642, respectively. Conclusions: The integration of DL with ultrasound demonstrates high accuracy in the adjunctive diagnosis of breast cancer, while the fusion of DL and multimodal breast ultrasound exhibits superior diagnostic efficacy compared to B-mode ultrasound alone.
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic capability of automated breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast cancer

Haoyu Zhang,Jingyi Hu,Rong Meng,Fangfang Liu,Fan Xu,Min Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1305545

IF: 4.7

2024-01-10

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in breast cancer. Methods: Published studies were collected by systematically searching the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were confirmed. The symmetric receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) was used to assess the threshold of ABUS and CEUS. Fagan's nomogram was drawn. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were applied to search for sources of heterogeneity among the included studies. Results: A total of 16 studies were included, comprising 4115 participants. The combined sensitivity of ABUS was 0.88 [95% CI (0.73–0.95)], specificity was 0.93 [95% CI (0.82–0.97)], area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.96 [95% CI (0.94–0.96)] and DOR was 89. The combined sensitivity of CEUS was 0.88 [95% CI (0.84–0.91)], specificity was 0.76 [95% CI (0.66–0.84)], AUC was 0.89 [95% CI (0.86–0.92)] and DOR was 24. The Deeks' funnel plot showed no existing publication bias. The prospective design, partial verification bias and blinding contributed to the heterogeneity in specificity, while no sources contributed to the heterogeneity in sensitivity. The post-test probability of ABUS in BC was 75%, and the post-test probability of CEUS in breast cancer was 48%. Conclusion: Compared with CEUS, ABUS showed higher specificity and DOR for detecting breast cancer. ABUS is expected to further improve the accuracy of BC diagnosis.

oncology
Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peri Abdullah,Mostafa Alabousi,Sherif Ramadan,Ismaiel Zawawi,Mayar Zawawi,Yasovineeth Bhogadi,Vivianne Freitas,Michael N Patlas,Abdullah Alabousi,Michael N. Patlas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.20.24204

2021-08-01

American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract:BACKGROUND. The use of synthetic 2D mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in place of standard 2D digital mammography (DM) may reduce radiation dose without sacrificing accuracy. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of SM, DM, SM with DBT, and DM with DBT for breast cancer detection. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for relevant articles published up to September 11, 2019. Studies included compared the diagnostic accuracy of SM versus DM and SM plus DBT versus DM plus DBT for breast cancer detection. Relevant study data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed to assess diagnostic accuracy (PROSPERO CRD42020150737). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Thirteen studies reporting on 201,304 patients (7252 patients with breast cancer) were included. The SM group (six studies: 20,728 patients, 724 with breast cancer) had 75% sensitivity (95% CI, 67-82%) and 92% specificity (95% CI, 85-96%). The DM group (nine studies: 52,082 patients, 2249 patients with breast cancer) had 73% sensitivity (95% CI, 65-80%) and 88% specificity (95% CI, 77-94%). The SM plus DBT group (10 studies, 64,224 patients, 2149 with breast cancer) had 85% sensitivity (95% CI, 80-89%) and 93% specificity (95% CI, 86-96%). The DM plus DBT group (nine studies, 64,270 patients, 2130 with breast cancer) had 84% sensitivity (95% CI, 80-88%) and 91% specificity (95% CI, 83-95%). Meta-regression models did not reveal significant differences in accuracy between the SM and DM groups (p = .25-.77). CONCLUSION. SM and SM plus DBT showed comparable diagnostic accuracy to DM and DM plus DBT, respectively. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support the implementation of SM in place of standard DM for mammographic imaging of the breasts. This may lead to an overall reduction in radiation exposure.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Diagnosis Accuracy of Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Image, and Radionuclide Imaging for Breast Cancer: a Meta Analysis

ZHANG Jing,WANG Pei-jun,YUAN Xiao-dong,TIAN Jian-ming,DONG Ning-xin,XU Wei-guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0258-879x.2007.10.015

2007-01-01

Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University

Abstract:Objective:To compare the performance of mammography,magnetic resonance image and positron emission tomography/single photon emission computed tomography(PET/SPECT) in the diagnosis of breast cancer by Meta analysis.Methods: Based on the assessment standard of evidencebased diagnostic experiment,we searched PubMed,OVID,and Medline database(1986-2006) for the articles on the diagnosis of breast cancer with MG,MRI,PET and/or SPECT.The data and parameters of the 3 diagnostic methods were subjected to Meta analysis.Using software Excel 2003,SPSS13.0 and RevMan 4.2,we calculated the summary sensitivity and specificity,the pooled odds ratio(OR) and likelihood(LR).Summary receiver operating characteristic curve(SROC) was drawn to evaluate accuracy of the 3 methods.Results: We obtained 30 articles,which included 41 data sets: 14 on MG(2 941 lesions),10 on MRI(1 428 lesions),and 17 on PET/SPECT(2 247 lesions).The pooled estimates for sensitivity of MG,MRI and PET/SPECT were 82%(95%CI:76%-86%),86%(95%CI:83%-88%),and 87%(95%CI:83%-90%),respectively;for specificity were 69%(95%CI:62%75%),65%(95%CI:62%-69%),and 82%(95%CI:76%-86%),respectively.Their weighted AUC(area under curve) were 0.84,0.89 and 0.90,respectively;Q* values were 0.77,0.81 and 0.88,respectively.The sensitivities of the 3 methods were not significantly different.The specificity of PET/SPECT was higher than those of MG and MRI(P0.05).The overall diagnostic efficacies of PET/SPECT and MRI were better than that of MG.Conclusion: MG remains to be a satisfactory method for initial diagnosis of breast cancer;MRI examination should first be considered for younger patients.PET/SPECT should be used when a diagnosis of breast cancer can not be confirmed.
Head-to-head comparison of cone-beam breast computed tomography and mammography in the diagnosis of primary breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lingcong Yang,Zijie Zhou,Jun Wang,Qiang Lin,Yahui Dong,Zhirong Guo,Fujun Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111292

IF: 4.531

2024-02-01

European Journal of Radiology

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: To compare the diagnostic performance of cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and mammography (MG) in primary breast cancer.METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang DATA, and China Science and Technology Journal databases were searched comprehensively from inception to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using bivariate random-effects models, and a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. Bivariate I2 statistics and meta-regression analyses were also performed. The differences in diagnostic performance between CBBCT and MG were analysed using Z-test statistics. Clinical utility was explored using Fagan's nomogram, and quality assessment was conducted utilising the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist.RESULTS: The summary sensitivity and specificity for CBBCT in diagnosing primary breast cancer were 0.92 (95 % CI: 0.87-0.94) and 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.71-0.85), respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) of the SROC was 0.93 (95 % CI: 0.90-0.95). For MG, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.69-0.83) and 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.66-0.82), respectively, with an AUC of 0.83 (95 % CI: 0.80-0.86). The Z-test revealed that the summary sensitivity of CBBCT was significantly higher than that of MG (P < 0.001). Additionally, the summary AUC of CBBCT was significantly higher than that of MG (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CBBCT for primary breast cancer was better than that of MG. However, the results of both the CBBCT and MG are based on studies with small sample sizes. Further studies with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive designs are required to address this issue.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Diagnostic value of mammography combined with ultrasound shear wave elastography and magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer

Long-Xiu Qi,Xiao Zhou,Yi-Gang Fu,Wen-Yan Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2024.14831

2024-12-06

Oncology Letters

Abstract:Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies affecting women worldwide, and an early diagnosis is critical for improving prognosis. The present study aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of mammography (MG) combined with ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the early screening of breast cancer. Patients with breast tumors who underwent lumpectomy at a single hospital between December 2021 and January 2023 were selected and categorized into a benign or malignant group based on pathological findings. All patients had undergone examinations with MG, SWE and MRI. Imaging parameters were subsequently compared between the two groups. A total of 93 patients with breast tumors were included in the study, comprising 37 individuals in the benign group and 56 in the malignant group. MG findings revealed that patients in the malignant group exhibited significantly higher incidences of high breast glandular density, irregular mass margins, unclear mass borders and axillary lymph node involvement compared with those in the benign group. SWE results indicated that the elasticity ratio of the lesion to fat, and the mean and maximum values of the elastic modulus were significantly lower in the benign group than in the malignant group. Additionally, MRI findings demonstrated that the MRI‐measured maximum diameter was larger, and the prevalence of irregular lesion morphology, irregular mass margins, signal enhancement and type III time‐signal intensity curves was greater in the malignant group compared with the benign group. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MG + SWE + MRI were 94.6, 86.5, 91.4 and 91.4%, respectively. Furthermore, the diagnostic efficacy of this combination surpassed that of MG + SWE, MG + MRI and SWE + MRI (area under the curve, 0.906 vs. 0.767, 0.758 and 0.763, respectively). In conclusion, the combination of MG with SWE and MRI exhibits a superior performance in the early diagnosis of breast cancer, exhibiting higher diagnostic accuracy and reliability compared with pairwise combinations.

oncology
Different Imaging Modalities for the Diagnosis of Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Zhifan Li,Ya Gao,Hengxin Gong,Wen Feng,Qinqin Ma,Jinkui Li,Xingru Lu,Xiaohui Wang,Junqiang Lei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28399

IF: 4.4

2022-08-31

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract:Background Accurate diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM) of breast cancer patients is important to guide local and systemic treatment. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities for ALNM in patients with breast cancer. Study Type Systematic review and network meta‐analysis (NMA). Subjects Sixty‐one original articles with 8011 participants. Field Strength 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Assessment We used the QUADAS‐2 and QUADAS‐C tools to assess the risk of bias in eligible studies. The identified articles assessed ultrasonography (US), MRI, mammography, ultrasound elastography (UE), PET, CT, PET/CT, scintimammography, and PET/MRI. Statistical Analysis We used random‐effects conventional meta‐analyses and Bayesian network meta‐analyses for data analyses. We used sensitivity and specificity, relative sensitivity and specificity, superiority index, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) analysis to compare the diagnostic value of different imaging modalities. Results Sixty‐one studies evaluated nine imaging modalities. At patient level, sensitivities of the nine imaging modalities ranged from 0.27 to 0.84 and specificities ranged from 0.84 to 0.95. Patient‐based NMA showed that UE had the highest superiority index (5.95) with the highest relative sensitivity of 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93–1.29) among all imaging methods when compared to US. At lymph node level, MRI had the highest superiority index (6.91) with highest relative sensitivity of 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01–1.23) and highest relative specificity of 1.11 (95% CI: 0.95–1.23) among all imaging methods when compared to US. SROCs also showed that UE and MRI had the largest area under the curve (AUC) at patient level and lymph node level of 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. Data Conclusion UE and MRI may be superior to other imaging modalities in the diagnosis of ALNM in breast cancer patients at the patient level and the lymph node level, respectively. Further studies are needed to provide high‐quality evidence to validate our findings. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
The diagnostic performance of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound and mammography in symptomatic outpatient women: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in China

Xi Lin,Mengmeng Jia,Xiang Zhou,Lingyun Bao,Yaqing Chen,Peifang Liu,Ruimei Feng,Xi Zhang,Luoxi Zhu,Hui Wang,Ying Zhu,Guoxue Tang,Wenqi Feng,Anhua Li,Youlin Qiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07197-7

IF: 7.034

2020-08-27

European Radiology

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer by comparing it to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG).

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Diagnostic Value of Superb Microvascular Imaging in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jiaping Feng,Jianghao Lu,Chunchun Jin,Yihao Chen,Sihan Chen,Guoqiang Guo,Xuehao Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112648

IF: 3.6

2022-11-01

Diagnostics

Abstract:Purpose: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that investigated the diagnostic performance of Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) in differentiating between benign and malignant breast tumors. Methods: Studies published between January 2010 and March 2022 were retrieved by online literature search conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and Vip databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odd ratios were calculated using Stata software 15.0. Heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using I2 statistic and Q test. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity. Influence analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the pooled conclusions. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was performed to assess publication bias. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed. Results: Twenty-three studies involving 2749 breast lesions were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–0.84, inconsistency index [I2] = 28.32%) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79–0.88, I2 = 89.36%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 19.95 (95% CI, 14.84–26.82). The area under the SROC (AUC) was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81–0.87). Conclusion: SMI has a relatively high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions. It represents a promising supplementary technique for the diagnosis of breast neoplasms.

medicine, general & internal
Comparison between combined ultrasounds and magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a cross-sectional study

Chaoxi Li,Dehui Wen,Haiyong Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4335

2024-02-13

Medical Ultrasonography

Abstract:Aim: To explore the performance of single or combined ultrasound (US) in diagnosing malignant breast lesions, and then compare the results with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) aspect.Material and methods: Patients’ demographics, tumor markers, and imaging examination were collected. Diagnostic models based on B-mode, color Doppler ultrasounds (CDU), strain elastography (SE), MRI, B-mode US + CDU, B-mode US + SE, and B-mode US + CDU + SE were developed using logistic regression analysis. The performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Performance of MRI and B-mode US + CDU was compared using DeLong analysis.Results: For single imaging modality, MRI showed the best performance, with AUC of 0.938 (95%CI: 0.888-0.988). For combined US modalities, combination of B-mode US and CDU had the best performance, with AUC of 0.948 (95%CI: 0.877-1.000). There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance between the combination of B-mode US and CDU and MRI (p>0.05).Conclusions: Our study found the performance of B-mode + CDU was comparable to MRI. Our findings suggested that the combination of B-mode US and CDU was recommended to diagnose malignant breast lesions in order to save time and expense and provide guidance to make decisions for a biopsy

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,acoustics
Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Abbreviated and Full Protocol Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Filippo Pesapane,Ottavia Battaglia,Anna Rotili,Giulia Gnocchi,Oriana D'Ecclesiis,Federica Bellerba,Silvia Penco,Giulia Signorelli,Luca Nicosia,Chiara Trentin,Valeria Dominelli,Francesca Priolo,Anna Bozzini,Sara Gandini,Enrico Cassano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae196

2024-10-14

Abstract:Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy, limitations, and clinical implications of Abbreviated Breast MRI (AB-MRI) and Full Protocol MRI (FP-MRI). It focuses on diagnostic accuracy across various populations and settings, extending the scope of prior meta-analyses by including studies conducted after 2019 in both screening and diagnostic contexts. Methods: We conducted a systematic review (from 11/2019 to 12/2022). A bivariate model was used to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Random effect models were used to calculate summary AUC and probability distributions for negative and positive predictive values were obtained. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between the AB-MRI and FP-MRI in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Results: The search across multiple databases yielded 11 eligible studies, including one prospective and ten retrospective studies. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in sensitivity between FP-MRI (95%) and AB-MRI (86%, p = 0.005), but not in specificity (p = 0.50). AB-MRI demonstrated a shorter acquisition time, suggesting potential for increased patient throughput. However, challenges remain in detecting small lesions and non-mass enhancements, with some studies suggesting the inclusion of additional sequences such as DWI with ADC mapping to enhance diagnostic performance. Conclusion: While FP-MRI remains the gold standard in breast cancer detection, AB-MRI presents as a viable, quicker alternative, especially useful in high-risk screening scenarios. Its lower sensitivity compared to FP-MRI, however, limits its utility as a standalone diagnostic tool. Future research should focus on optimizing AB-MRI protocols and investigating patient-specific factors to refine breast cancer screening and diagnostic strategies.

Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic Evaluations of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mammary Duct Ectasia and Breast Cancer

Diagnostic Performance of Adjunctive Imaging Modalities Compared to Mammography Alone in Women with Non-Dense and Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic Efficacy of Five Different Imaging Modalities in the Assessment of Women Recalled at Breast Screening—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ultrasound‐based radiomics for the differential diagnosis of breast masses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer

Evaluating the role and diagnostic performance of ultrasound in diagnosing soft tissue tumors and pseudotumors in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography and head-to-head comparison of digital mammography, magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam breast computed tomography for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Preoperative Prediction Power of Radiomics for Breast Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Deep learning-based computer-aided detection of ultrasound in breast cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic capability of automated breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast cancer

Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnosis Accuracy of Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Image, and Radionuclide Imaging for Breast Cancer: a Meta Analysis

Head-to-head comparison of cone-beam breast computed tomography and mammography in the diagnosis of primary breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic value of mammography combined with ultrasound shear wave elastography and magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer

Different Imaging Modalities for the Diagnosis of Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

The diagnostic performance of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound and mammography in symptomatic outpatient women: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in China

Diagnostic Value of Superb Microvascular Imaging in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison between combined ultrasounds and magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a cross-sectional study

Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Abbreviated and Full Protocol Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis