Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Alberto Stefano Tagliafico, Bianca Bignotti, Federica Rossi, Alessio Signori, Maria Pia Sormani, Francesca Vadora, Massimo Calabrese, Nehmat Houssami

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate sensitivity and specificity of CESM for breast cancer diagnosis. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of CESM in finding breast cancer in highly selected women. We estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity and specificity according to quality criteria with QUADAS-2. Results: Six hundred four studies were retrieved, 8 of these reporting on 920 patients with 994 lesions, were eligible for inclusion. Estimated sensitivity from all studies was: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Specificity was estimated from six studies reporting raw data: 0.58 (95% CI: 0.38-0.57). The majority of studies were scored as at high risk of bias due to the very selected populations. Conclusion: CESM has a high sensitivity but very low specificity. The source studies were based on highly selected case series and prone to selection bias. High-quality studies are required to assess the accuracy of CESM in unselected cases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)13-19
Number of pages7
JournalBreast
Volume28
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 1 2016

Keywords

  • Accuracy
  • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
  • Meta-analysis
  • Sensitivity
  • Specificity
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Tagliafico, A. S., Bignotti, B., Rossi, F., Signori, A., Sormani, M. P., Vadora, F., Calabrese, M., & Houssami, N. (2016). Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast, 28, 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008