Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach

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

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.

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

Background

Cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) is a new breast imaging technique, however, CBBCT is not yet widely used, and its future application will depend on its diagnostic potential and application value. Therefore, it is of great clinical significance to systematically review and analyze the diagnostic accuracy of CBBCT for breast cancer detection in existing studies and compare it with other traditional imaging methods for the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese databases until August 2022 for relevant papers. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CBBCT in women with suspected breast cancer were included. Each study's quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) instrument.

Results

Eighteen studies with a total of 1,792 patients were included in the analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of CBBCT in diagnosing breast cancer were 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.97] and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for CBBCT was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94). In a head-to-head comparison of CBBCT and digital mammography (DM), eight trials with 992 patients were included in the study, and the AUCs for CBBCT and DM were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.83), respectively. In a head-to-head comparison of CBBCT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), four trials with 203 patients were included in the analysis; the AUC for CBBCT and MRI were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), respectively.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis of CBBCT test accuracy indicated encouraging diagnostic performance. In the summary of head-to-head comparative studies, there is a tendency for CBBCT to have greater diagnostic accuracy than DM, although its diagnostic performance is marginally inferior to that of MRI. However, the meta-analysis results were derived from studies with limited sample sizes. There is a need for more extensive research in this setting.