Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

被引:34
作者
Uhlig, Johannes [1 ,2 ]
Uhlig, Annemarie [3 ]
Biggemann, Lorenz [1 ]
Fischer, Uwe [4 ]
Lotz, Joachim [1 ,5 ]
Wienbeck, Susanne [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Goettingen, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Robert Koch Str 40, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany
[2] Yale Sch Med, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, Sect Intervent Radiol, New Haven, CT USA
[3] Univ Med Ctr Goettingen, Dept Urol, Gottingen, Germany
[4] Diagnost Breast Imaging Ctr, Gottingen, Germany
[5] German Ctr Cardiovasc Res, Partnersite Goettingen, Gottingen, Germany
关键词
Breast; Cone-beam computed tomography; Contrast media; Radiation dosage; Meta-analysis; CT; MAMMOGRAPHY; DISCRIMINATION; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-018-5711-9
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeTo review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment.Materials and MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL libraries. Studies were included if reporting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions via breast CT. Sensitivity and specificity were jointly modeled using a bivariate approach calculating summary areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). All analyses were separately performed for non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NC-CBBCT, CE-CBBCT).ResultsA total of 362 studies were screened, of which 6 with 559 patients were included. All studies were conducted between 2015 and 2018 and evaluated female participants. Four of six studies included dense and very dense breasts with a high proportion of microcalcifications. For NC-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.789 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and pooled specificity was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.471-0.851), both showing considerable significant between-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 89.4%, I-2 = 94.7%, both p < 0.001). Partial AUC for NC-CBBCT was 0.817. For CE-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.899 (95% CI: 0.785-0.956) and pooled specificity was 0.788 (95% CI: 0.709-0.85), both exhibiting non-significant moderate between-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 57.3%, p = 0.0527; I-2 = 53.1%, p = 0.0738). Partial AUC for CE-CBBCT was 0.869.ConclusionThe evidence available for CBBCT tends to show superior diagnostic performance for CE-CBBCT over NC-CBBCT regarding sensitivity, specificity and partial AUC. Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CBBCT was numerically comparable to that of breast MRI with meta-analyses reporting sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.72.Key Points center dot CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy.center dot CE-CBBCT diagnostic performance was comparable to published results on breast MRI, thus qualifying CE-CBBCT as a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.
引用
收藏
页码:1194 / 1202
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography [J].
Aminololama-Shakeri, Shadi ;
Abbey, Craig K. ;
Gazi, Peymon ;
Prionas, Nicolas D. ;
Nosratieh, Anita ;
Li, Chin-Shang ;
Boone, John M. ;
Lindfors, Karen K. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (01) :297-303
[2]   Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: Results of a multicenter trial [J].
Bazzocchi, M ;
Zuiani, C ;
Panizza, P ;
Del Frate, C ;
Soldano, F ;
Isola, M ;
Sardanelli, F ;
Giuseppetti, GM ;
Simonetti, G ;
Lattanzio, V ;
Del Maschio, A .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2006, 186 (06) :1723-1732
[3]   MR Imaging for Diagnosis of Malignancy in Mammographic Microcalcifications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Bennani-Baiti, Barbara ;
Baltzer, Pascal A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (03) :691-700
[4]   Editorial comment: cone-beam and phase contrast CT: new horizons in breast imaging? [J].
Boss, Andreas .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (09) :3729-3730
[5]  
Cole E, 2015, RAD SOC N AM 2015 SC
[6]   Measurement of breast tissue composition with dual energy cone-beam computed tomography: A postmortem study [J].
Ding, Huanjun ;
Ducote, Justin L. ;
Molloi, Sabee .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)
[7]   The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability [J].
Hamza, Taye H. ;
van Houwelingen, Hans C. ;
Stijnen, Theo .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 61 (01) :41-51
[8]   The utility of breast cone-beam computed tomography, ultrasound, and digital mammography for detecting malignant breast tumors: A prospective study with 212 patients [J].
He, Ni ;
Wu, Yao-Pan ;
Kong, Yanan ;
Lv, Ning ;
Huang, Zhi-Mei ;
Li, Sheng ;
Wang, Yue ;
Geng, Zhi-jun ;
Wu, Pei-Hong ;
Wei, Wei-Dong .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (02) :392-403
[9]   Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations [J].
Kolb, TM ;
Lichy, J ;
Newhouse, JH .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 (01) :165-175
[10]   Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers [J].
Mandelson, MT ;
Oestreicher, N ;
Porter, PL ;
White, D ;
Finder, CA ;
Taplin, SH ;
White, E .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2000, 92 (13) :1081-1087