Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature Search and Study Selection
2.2. Quality Assessment
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Meta-Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Systematic Review
3.3. Meta-Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elmore, J.G.; Armstrong, K.; Lehman, C.D.; Fletcher, S.W. Screening for Breast Cancer. JAMA 2005, 293, 1245–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coleman, C. Early Detection and Screening for Breast Cancer. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2017, 33, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mann, R.M.; Hooley, R.; Barr, R.G.; Moy, L. Novel Approaches to Screening for Breast Cancer. Radiology 2020, 297, 266–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brem, R.F.; Lenihan, M.J.; Lieberman, J.; Torrente, J. Screening Breast Ultrasound: Past, Present, and Future. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015, 204, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, W.H.; Hsu, H.C.; Chen, Y.Y.; Wu, C.H. Supplemental Breast Cancer-Screening Ultrasonography in Women with Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Br. J. Cancer 2020, 123, 673–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, R.M.; Cho, N.; Moy, L. Breast MRI: State of the Art. Radiology 2019, 292, 520–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sung, J.S.; Lebron, L.; Keating, D.; D’Alessio, D.; Comstock, C.E.; Lee, C.H.; Pike, M.C.; Ayhan, M.; Moskowitz, C.S.; Morris, E.A.; et al. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer. Radiology 2019, 293, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sogani, J.; Mango, V.L.; Keating, D.; Sung, J.S.; Jochelson, M.S. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Past, Present, and Future. Clin. Imaging 2021, 69, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewin, J.M.; Patel, B.K.; Tanna, A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review. J. Breast Imaging 2020, 2, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghaderi, K.F.; Phillips, J.; Perry, H.; Lotfi, P.; Mehta, T.S. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Current Applications and Future Directions. Radiographics 2019, 39, 1907–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, R.M.; Kuhl, C.K.; Moy, L. Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Breast Cancer Screening. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019, 50, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiang, W.; Rao, H.; Zhou, L. A Meta-Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography versus MRI in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer. Thorac. Cancer 2020, 11, 1423–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyaga, V.N.; Arbyn, M.; Aerts, M. Metaprop: A Stata Command to Perform Meta-Analysis of Binomial Data. Arch. Public Health Arch. Belg. De Sante Publique 2014, 72, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Higgins, J.P.T. Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rudnicki, W.; Piegza, T.; Rozum-Liszewska, N.; Górski, M.; Popiela, T.J.; Basta, P.; Henize, S.; Luczynska, E. The Effectiveness of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Dense Breasts. Pol. J. Radiol. 2021, 86, e159–e164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luczynska, E.; Pawlak, M.; Piegza, T.; Popiela, T.J.; Heinze, S.; Dyczek, S.; Rudnicki, W. Analysis of Background Parenchymal Enhancement (BPE) on Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography Compared with Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Ginekol. Pol. 2021, 92, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clauser, P.; Baltzer, P.A.T.; Kapetas, P.; Hoernig, M.; Weber, M.; Leone, F.; Bernathova, M.; Helbich, T.H. Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020, 52, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheung, Y.C.; Juan, Y.H.; Lo, Y.F.; Lin, Y.C.; Yeh, C.H.; Ueng, S.H. Preoperative Assessment of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography of Diagnosed Breast Cancers after Sonographic Biopsy: Correlation to Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 5-Year Postoperative Follow-Up. Medicine 2020, 99, e19024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marino, M.A.; Leithner, D.; Sung, J.; Avendano, D.; Morris, E.A.; Pinker, K.; Jochelson, M.S. Radiomics for Tumor Characterization in Breast Cancer Patients: A Feasibility Study Comparing Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, D.; Lv, Y.; Sun, B.; Xie, H.; Dong, J.; Hao, C.; Chen, Q.; Chi, X. Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Comparison to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Lesions. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2019, 43, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumkin, J.H.; Berg, W.A.; Carter, G.J.; Bandos, A.I.; Chough, D.M.; Ganott, M.A.; Hakim, C.M.; Kelly, A.E.; Zuley, M.L.; Houshmand, G.; et al. Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. Radiology 2019, 293, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youn, I.; Choi, S.H.; Choi, Y.J.; Moon, J.H.; Park, H.J.; Ham, S.Y.; Park, C.H.; Kim, E.Y.; Kook, S.H. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Accurate Measurement of the Size of Breast Cancer. Br. J. Radiol. 2019, 92, 20180929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, E.Y.; Youn, I.; Lee, K.H.; Yun, J.S.; Park, Y.L.; Park, C.H.; Moon, J.; Choi, S.H.; Choi, Y.J.; Ham, S.Y.; et al. Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer. J. Breast Cancer 2018, 21, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Roth, R.; Germaine, P.; Ren, S.; Lee, M.; Hunter, K.; Tinney, E.; Liao, L. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): A Retrospective Comparison in 66 Breast Lesions. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2017, 98, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee-Felker, S.A.; Tekchandani, L.; Thomas, M.; Gupta, E.; Andrews-Tang, D.; Roth, A.; Sayre, J.; Rahbar, G. Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease. Radiology 2017, 285, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fallenberg, E.M.; Schmitzberger, F.F.; Amer, H.; Ingold-Heppner, B.; Balleyguier, C.; Diekmann, F.; Engelken, F.; Mann, R.M.; Renz, D.M.; Bick, U.; et al. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography vs. Mammography and MRI—Clinical Performance in a Multi-Reader Evaluation. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 2752–2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knogler, T.; Homolka, P.; Hoernig, M.; Leithner, R.; Langs, G.; Waitzbauer, M.; Pinker, K.; Leitner, S.; Helbich, T.H. Application of BI-RADS Descriptors in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: Comparison with MRI. Breast Care 2017, 12, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Q.; Li, K.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, Z.; Feng, Y. Preclinical Study of Diagnostic Performances of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography versus MRI for Breast Diseases in China. Springerplus 2016, 5, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chou, C.P.; Lewin, J.M.; Chiang, C.L.; Hung, B.H.; Yang, T.L.; Huang, J.S.; Liao, J.B.; Pan, H. Ben Clinical Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography and Contrast Enhanced Tomosynthesis—Comparison to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI. Eur. J. Radiol. 2015, 84, 2501–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łuczyńska, E.; Heinze-Paluchowska, S.; Hendrick, E.; Dyczek, S.; Ryś, J.; Herman, K.; Blecharz, P.; Jakubowicz, J. Comparison between Breast MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography. Med. Sci. Monit. 2015, 21, 1358–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lobbes, M.B.I.; Lalji, U.C.; Nelemans, P.J.; Houben, I.; Smidt, M.L.; Heuts, E.; de Vries, B.; Wildberger, J.E.; Beets-Tan, R.G. The Quality of Tumor Size Assessment by Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and the Benefit of Additional Breast MRI. J. Cancer 2015, 6, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fallenberg, E.M.; Dromain, C.; Diekmann, F.; Engelken, F.; Krohn, M.; Singh, J.M.; Ingold-Heppner, B.; Winzer, K.J.; Bick, U.; Renz, D.M. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography versus MRI: Initial Results in the Detection of Breast Cancer and Assessment of Tumour Size. Eur. Radiol. 2014, 24, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jochelson, M.S.; Dershaw, D.D.; Sung, J.S.; Heerdt, A.S.; Thornton, C.; Moskowitz, C.S.; Ferrara, J.; Morris, E.A. Bilateral Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Digital Mammography: Feasibility and Comparison with Conventional Digital Mammography and MR Imaging in Women with Known Breast Carcinoma. Radiology 2013, 266, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hobbs, M.M.; Taylor, D.B.; Buzynski, S.; Peake, R.E. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Contrast Enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient Preferences and Tolerance. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2015, 59, 300–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, M.F.; de Lange, S.V.; Pijnappel, R.M.; Mann, R.M.; Peeters, P.H.M.; Monninkhof, E.M.; Emaus, M.J.; Loo, C.E.; Bisschops, R.H.C.; Lobbes, M.B.I.; et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. New Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 2091–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, L.; Bevers, T.B.; Helvie, M.; Lehman, C.D.; Bonaccio, E.; Monsees, B.; Calhoun, K.E.; Niell, B.L.; Daly, M.B.; Parker, C.C.; et al. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2018, 16, 1362–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schünemann, H.J.; Lerda, D.; Quinn, C.; Follmann, M.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Rossi, P.G.; Lebeau, A.; Nyström, L.; Broeders, M.; Ioannidou-Mouzaka, L.; et al. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 172, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amornsiripanitch, N.; Bickelhaupt, S.; Shin, H.J.; Dang, M.; Rahbar, H.; Pinker, K.; Partridge, S.C. Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Unenhanced Breast Cancer Screening. Radiology 2019, 293, 504–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, J.; Hippe, D.S.; Rahbar, H.; Parsian, S.; Rendi, M.H.; Partridge, S.C. Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Tumor Microstructure and Improving Diagnostic Performance on Breast MRI: A Prospective Observational Study. Breast Cancer Res. 2019, 21, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Tang, M.; Min, Z.; Lu, J.; Lei, X.; Zhang, X. Accuracy of Combined Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Breast Cancer Detection: A Meta-Analysis. Acta Radiol. 2016, 57, 651–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahbar, H.; Zhang, Z.; Chenevert, T.L.; Romanoff, J.; Kitsch, A.E.; Hanna, L.G.; Harvey, S.M.; Moy, L.; DeMartini, W.B.; Dogan, B.; et al. Utility of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging to Decrease Unnecessary Biopsies Prompted by Breast MRI: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (A6702). Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 1756–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Principal Analyses | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Heterogeneity; p-Value | Specificity (95% CI) | Heterogeneity; p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All detected lesions | CE-MRI | 0.96 (CI 0.93–0.98) | I2 72.02%; p = 0.001 | 0.30 (CI 0.11–0.52) | I2 93.90%; p = 0.001 |
CEM | 0.96 (CI 0.93–0.99) | I2 83.06%; p = 0.001 | 0.43 (CI 0.25–0.63) | I2 88.01%; p = 0.001 | |
Secondary analyses | |||||
Index lesions detection | CE-MRI | 0.96 (CI 0.94–0.98) | I2 61.63%; p = 0.001 | 0.35 (CI 0.13–0.61) | I2 94.31%; p = 0.001 |
CEM | 0.97 (CI 0.95–0.99) | I2 72.05%; p = 0.001 | 0.38 (CI 0.17–0.61) | I2 90.68%; p = 0.001 | |
DD of suspicious lesions at screening * | CE-MRI | 0.95 (CI 0.91–0.98) | I2 67.75%; p = 0.001 | 0.55 (CI 0.26–0.82) | I2 94.06%; p = 0.001 |
CEM | 0.98 (CI 0.93–1.00) | I2 76.46%; p = 0.001 | 0.58 (CI 0.32–0.82) | I2 92.63%; p = 0.001 | |
Pre-operative staging * | CE-MRI | 0.97 (CI 0.95–0.99) | I2 42.49%; p = 0.10 | 0.08 (CI 0.0–0.23) | I2 73.60%; p = 0.001 |
CEM | 0.97 (CI 0.94–0.99) | I2 69.81%; p = 0.001 | 0.27 (CI 0.02–0.62) | I2 80.91%; p = 0.001 | |
Diagnosis in dense breasts | CE-MRI | 0.98 (CI 0.91–1.00) | I2 78.96%; p = 0.01 | NA | NA |
CEM | 0.99 (CI 0.92–1.00) | I2 85.89%; p = 0.001 | NA | NA |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. 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/).
Share and Cite
Gelardi, F.; Ragaini, E.M.; Sollini, M.; Bernardi, D.; Chiti, A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890
Gelardi F, Ragaini EM, Sollini M, Bernardi D, Chiti A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(8):1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890
Chicago/Turabian StyleGelardi, Fabrizia, Elisa Maria Ragaini, Martina Sollini, Daniela Bernardi, and Arturo Chiti. 2022. "Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Diagnostics 12, no. 8: 1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890
APA StyleGelardi, F., Ragaini, E. M., Sollini, M., Bernardi, D., & Chiti, A. (2022). Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics, 12(8), 1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081890