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
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 May;311(2):e232508.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.232508.

Performance of Diffusion-weighted Imaging-based Noncontrast MRI Protocols for Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Performance of Diffusion-weighted Imaging-based Noncontrast MRI Protocols for Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nina Pötsch et al. Radiology. 2024 May.

Abstract

Background Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly recognized as a powerful diagnostic tool and tested alternative to contrast-enhanced (CE) breast MRI. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the diagnostic performance of DWI-based noncontrast MRI protocols (ncDWI) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search in PubMed for articles published from January 1985 to September 2023 was performed. Studies were excluded if they investigated malignant lesions or selected patients and/or lesions only, used DWI as an adjunct technique to CE MRI, or were technical studies. Statistical analysis included pooling of diagnostic accuracy and investigating between-study heterogeneity. Additional subgroup comparisons of ncDWI to CE MRI and standard mammography were performed. Results A total of 28 studies were included, with 4406 lesions (1676 malignant, 2730 benign) in 3787 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ncDWI were 86.5% (95% CI: 81.4, 90.4) and 83.5% (95% CI: 76.9, 88.6), and both measures presented with high between-study heterogeneity (I 2 = 81.6% and 91.6%, respectively; P < .001). CE MRI (18 studies) had higher sensitivity than ncDWI (95.1% [95% CI: 92.9, 96.7] vs 88.9% [95% CI: 82.4, 93.1], P = .004) at similar specificity (82.2% [95% CI: 75.0, 87.7] vs 82.0% [95% CI: 74.8, 87.5], P = .97). Compared with ncDWI, mammography (five studies) showed no evidence of a statistical difference for sensitivity (80.3% [95% CI: 56.3, 93.3] vs 56.7%; [95% CI: 41.9, 70.4], respectively; P = .09) or specificity (89.9% [95% CI: 85.5, 93.1] vs 90% [95% CI: 61.3, 98.1], respectively; P = .62), but ncDWI had a higher area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (0.93 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.95] vs 0.78 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.81], P < .001). Conclusion A direct comparison with CE MRI showed a modestly lower sensitivity at similar specificity for ncDWI, and higher diagnostic performance indexes for ncDWI than standard mammography. Heterogeneity was high, thus these results must be interpreted with caution. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kataoka and Iima in this issue.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources