1
|
Cozzi A, Magni V, Zanardo M, Schiaffino S, Sardanelli F. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance. Radiology 2021; 302:568-581. [PMID: 34904875 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
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 (τ2 = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .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 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Cozzi
- 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.)
| | - Veronica Magni
- 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.)
| | - Moreno Zanardo
- 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.)
| | - Simone Schiaffino
- 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.)
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- 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.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography: Technique, Clinical Applications, and Pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 215:1267-1278. [PMID: 32877247 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.19.22412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) combines the high spatial resolution of mammography with the improved enhancement provided by contrast medium. In this article, CEDM technique-the current and potential clinical applications and current challenges-will be reviewed. CONCLUSION. CEDM is a promising technique in the supplemental evaluation of patients with mammographically inconclusive findings and potentially in the screening of women with mammographically dense breasts. CEDM is emerging as a cost-effective alternative to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to stage newly diagnosed breast cancer and evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Collapse
|
3
|
Covington MF. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation, Performance, and Use for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening. Radiol Clin North Am 2020; 59:113-128. [PMID: 33222993 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technology that provides recombined contrast-enhanced images of the breast in addition to low-energy images analogous to a 2-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Because most breast imaging centers do not use CEM at this time, a detailed overview of CEM implementation and performance is presented. Thereafter, the potential use of CEM for supplemental screening is discussed in detail, given the importance of this topic for the future of the CEM community. Diagnostic performance, safety, and cost considerations of CEM for dense breast tissue supplemental screening are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew F Covington
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Center for Quantitative Cancer Imaging, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, Labaj O, Monti CB, Schiaffino S, Carbonaro LA, Sardanelli F. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insights Imaging 2019; 10:76. [PMID: 31376021 PMCID: PMC6677840 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2019] [Accepted: 05/17/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/vendor, radiation dose, low-/high-energy tube voltage; contrast molecule, concentration and dose; injection modality, ARs and acquisition delay; order of views; examination time. Of 120 retrieved articles, 84 were included from 22 countries (September 2003-January 2019), totalling 14012 patients. Design was prospective in 44/84 studies (52%); in 70/84 articles (83%), a General Electric unit with factory-set kVp was used. Per-view average glandular dose, reported in 12/84 studies (14%), ranged 0.43-2.65 mGy. Contrast type/concentration was reported in 79/84 studies (94%), with Iohexol 350 mgI/mL mostly used (25/79, 32%), dose and flow rate in 72/84 (86%), with 1.5 mL/kg dose at 3 mL/s in 62/72 studies (86%). Injection was described in 69/84 articles (82%), automated in 59/69 (85%), manual in 10/69 (15%) and flush in 35/84 (42%), with 10-30 mL dose in 19/35 (54%). An examination time < 10 min was reported in 65/84 studies (77%), 120 s acquisition delay in 65/84 (77%) and order of views in 42/84 (50%) studies, beginning with the craniocaudal view of the non-suspected breast in 7/42 (17%). Thirty ARs were reported by 14/84 (17%) studies (26 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe non-fatal) with a pooled rate of 0.82% (fixed-effect model). Only half of CESM studies were prospective; factory-set kVp, contrast 1.5 mL/kg at 3 mL/s and 120 s acquisition delay were mostly used; only 1 severe AR was reported. CESM protocol standardisation is advisable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moreno Zanardo
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Cozzi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy.
| | - Rubina Manuela Trimboli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy
| | - Olgerta Labaj
- Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Section of Radiology, University of Ferrara, Via Ludovico Ariosto 35, 44121, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Caterina Beatrice Monti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy
| | - Simone Schiaffino
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Sardanelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy.,Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| |
Collapse
|