1. GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, the Netherlands.
2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, the Netherlands.
3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA.
4. Department of Medical Imaging, Laurentius hospital, Mgr. Driessenstrtaat 6, 6040AX Roermond, the Netherlands.
5. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, the Netherlands.
6. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, P. Debyelaan 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, the Netherlands.
7. Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands.
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.
Keywords: contrast-enhanced mammography, breast MRI, diagnostic accuracy