Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar;29(3):1194-1202. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5711-9. Epub 2018 Sep 25.

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

Author information

1
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. Johannes.uhlig@med.uni-goettingen.de.
2
Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. Johannes.uhlig@med.uni-goettingen.de.
3
Department of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
4
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
5
Diagnostic Breast Imaging Center, Goettingen, Germany.
6
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partnersite Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A 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).

RESULTS:

A 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 (I2 = 89.4%, I2 = 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 (I2 = 57.3%, p = 0.0527; I2 = 53.1%, p = 0.0738). Partial AUC for CE-CBBCT was 0.869.

CONCLUSION:

The 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:

• CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy. • 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.

KEYWORDS:

Breast; Cone-beam computed tomography; Contrast media; Meta-analysis; Radiation dosage

PMID:
30255249
DOI:
10.1007/s00330-018-5711-9
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center