Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jan 1;14(1):174-182.
doi: 10.7150/jca.79747. eCollection 2023.

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

Lidewij M F H Neeter  1   2 , M M Quirien Robbe  2 , Thiemo J A van Nijnatten  1   2 , Maxine S Jochelson  3 , H P J Raat  4 , Joachim E Wildberger  2 , Marjolein L Smidt  5 , Patty J Nelemans  6 , Marc B I Lobbes  1   2   7
Affiliations
Review

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

Lidewij M F H Neeter et al. J Cancer. .

Abstract

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: breast MRI; contrast-enhanced mammography; diagnostic accuracy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: MJ received a speaker's fee from GE Healthcare. JW received institutional grants from AGFA, Bayer Healthcare, Bard Medical, GE Healthcare, Optimed, Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers. ML received a research grant and several speaker's fees from GE Healthcare, Tromp Medical, Bayer and Guerbet. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of systematic search.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots of sensitivity for CEM (A) and breast MRI (B) with pooled values, and the I2 values.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of specificity for CEM (A) and breast MRI (B) with pooled values, and the I2 values.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for CEM (A) and breast MRI (B) with pooled values, and I2 values.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Hierarchical sROC curves of CEM (black line) and breast MRI (black dotted line). The summary points of pooled sensitivity with pooled specificity for CEM and breast MRI are shown with the black circle and black triangle, respectively.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D. et al. Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2019;293:81–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Breast cancer 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer (accessed April 26, 2022)
    1. Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology. 2019;292:520–36. - PubMed
    1. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:W231–7. - PubMed
    1. Richter V, Hatterman V, Preibsch H. et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients with MRI contraindications. Acta Radiol. 2018;59:798–805. - PubMed