Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Breast MRI: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI). Like breast MRI, CEM enables tumour visualization by contrast accumulation. CEM seems to be a viable substitute for breast MRI. Methods: This systematic search assessed the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques in women with suspicious breast lesions on prior imaging or physical examination, who have undergone both breast MRI and CEM. CEM had to be performed on a commercially available system. The MRI sequence parameters had to be described sufficiently to ensure that standard breast MRI sequence protocols were used. Pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were estimated using bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for CEM and breast MRI were also constructed. Results: Six studies (607 patients with 775 lesions) met the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 96% for CEM and 97% for breast MRI. Pooled specificity was 77% for both modalities. DOR was 79.5 for CEM and 122.9 for breast MRI. Between-study heterogeneity expressed as the I2 -index was substantial with values over 80%. Conclusion: Pooled sensitivity was high for both CEM and breast MRI, with moderate specificity. The pooled DOR estimates, however, indicate higher overall diagnostic performance of breast MRI compared to CEM. Nonetheless, current scientific evidence is too limited to prematurely discard CEM as an alternative for breast MRI.

Diagnostic performance of PET/computed tomography versus PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in the N- and M-staging of breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review regarding the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) compared to 18F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) focused on nodal and distant staging in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until April 2020. Two independent reviewers searched for eligible articles based on predefined in- and exclusion criteria, assessed quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies were selected from 561 publications identified by the search. In seven studies, PET/CT was compared with PET/MRI, and in five, PET/CT with DWI. Significantly higher sensitivity for PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in a lesion-based analysis was reported for all lesions together (77% versus 89%) in one study, osseous metastases (69-99% versus 92-98%) in two studies and hepatic metastases (70-75% versus 80-100%) in one study. Moreover, PET/MRI revealed a significantly higher amount of osseous metastases (90 versus 141) than PET/CT. PET/CT is associated with a statistically higher specificity than PET/MRI in the lesion detection of all lesions together (98% versus 96%) and of osseous metastases (100% versus 95%), both in one study. None of the reviewed studies reported significant differences between PET/CT and DWI for any of the evaluated sites. There is a trend toward higher specificity for PET/CT.

CONCLUSION

In general, there is a trend toward higher sensitivity and lower specificity of PET/MRI when compared to PET/CT. Results on the diagnostic performance of DWI are conflicting. Rather than evaluating it separate, it seems to have complementary value when combined with other MR sequences.