From the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (A.C., V.M., M.Z., F.S.); and Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., F.S.).
Radiology. 2022 Mar;302(3):568-581. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211412. Epub 2021 Dec 14.
Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.
背景 对比增强乳腺摄影(CEM)是一种很有前途的乳腺癌检测技术,但之前的荟萃分析结果存在冲突。目的 对 CEM 诊断性能进行系统评价和荟萃分析,考虑不同的解释方法和临床环境。材料与方法 系统检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 数据库,检索时间截至 2021 年 7 月 15 日。纳入了评估 CEM 诊断性能的前瞻性和回顾性研究,以组织病理学和/或随访为参考标准。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估 2 工具评估研究质量。使用分层汇总受试者工作特征(HSROC)模型估计汇总诊断优势比和受试者工作特征曲线下面积。使用分层双变量模型获得汇总敏感性和特异性估计值,对具有相同图像解释方法或侧重于相同发现的研究进行汇总。通过荟萃回归和亚组分析研究异质性。结果 纳入了 60 项研究(67 个研究部分,11049 次 CEM 检查,涉及 10605 例患者)。HSROC 曲线下总面积为 0.94(95%CI:0.91,0.96)。汇总诊断优势比为 55.7(95%CI:42.7,72.7),异质性较大(τ=0.3)。在荟萃回归中,与仅使用重组图像相比,同时使用低能和重组图像的 CEM 解释具有更高的敏感性(95%比 94%,<.001)和特异性(81%比 71%,=.03)。在亚组分析中,9 项研究在致密乳腺患者中 CEM 显示 95%的汇总敏感性(95%CI:92,97)和 78%的汇总特异性(95%CI:66,87),而在 10 项关于乳腺摄影检测到可疑发现的研究中,CEM 的汇总敏感性为 92%(95%CI:89,94)和 84%的汇总特异性(95%CI:73,91)。结论 CEM 在乳腺癌检测中表现出较高的性能,特别是联合解读低能和重组图像时。©RSNA,2021 本期刊登了 Bahl 的社论。