Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound Elastography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Differentiate Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IF 3.8 2区 医学Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ana Filipa Gomes, David Justino, Carina Tomás, Diogo Jesus, Ana Macedo, Ezequiel Pinto, Helena Leitão
{"title":"Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound Elastography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Differentiate Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ana Filipa Gomes, David Justino, Carina Tomás, Diogo Jesus, Ana Macedo, Ezequiel Pinto, Helena Leitão","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2024.12.061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was comparing diagnostic performance of ultrasound elastography (UE), strain UE and shear wave elastography (SWE), with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Google Scholar was performed in June 2023. Included studies used Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and histopathology as reference standard. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios and area under the curve (AUC). Meta-regression subgroup analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies and 536 lesions were included. Pooled sensitivity was not different between MRI vs UE [MRI: 94% (95% CI: 88.2%-96.9%) vs UE: 90% (95% CI: 84.7%-93.1%); P=0.153] but a difference was found for specificity [UE: 78% (95% CI: 66.3%-86.4%) vs MRI: 71.3% (95% CI: 52.1%-85%); P=0.0065]. Strain UE showed higher specificity and similar sensitivity to SWE [strain UE: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.71-0.93) vs SWE: 0.72 (95% 0.58-0.83); P=0.017 and strain UE: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) vs SWE: 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.95); P=0.311, respectively]. AUC was similar between MRI vs UE [0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.95) vs 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95); P=0.452, respectively] as was DOR [MRI: 38.083 (95% CI: 12.401-116.957) vs UE: 30.395 (95% CI: 16.572-55.75); P>0.05]. Meta-regression analysis found no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy between MRI, strain UE and SWE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results show that UE when compared to MRI has adequate performance in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.12.061","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was comparing diagnostic performance of ultrasound elastography (UE), strain UE and shear wave elastography (SWE), with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.
Methods: Literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Google Scholar was performed in June 2023. Included studies used Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and histopathology as reference standard. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios and area under the curve (AUC). Meta-regression subgroup analysis was performed.
Results: Nine studies and 536 lesions were included. Pooled sensitivity was not different between MRI vs UE [MRI: 94% (95% CI: 88.2%-96.9%) vs UE: 90% (95% CI: 84.7%-93.1%); P=0.153] but a difference was found for specificity [UE: 78% (95% CI: 66.3%-86.4%) vs MRI: 71.3% (95% CI: 52.1%-85%); P=0.0065]. Strain UE showed higher specificity and similar sensitivity to SWE [strain UE: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.71-0.93) vs SWE: 0.72 (95% 0.58-0.83); P=0.017 and strain UE: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) vs SWE: 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.95); P=0.311, respectively]. AUC was similar between MRI vs UE [0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.95) vs 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95); P=0.452, respectively] as was DOR [MRI: 38.083 (95% CI: 12.401-116.957) vs UE: 30.395 (95% CI: 16.572-55.75); P>0.05]. Meta-regression analysis found no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy between MRI, strain UE and SWE.
Conclusion: Our results show that UE when compared to MRI has adequate performance in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.
目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较超声弹性成像(UE)、应变UE和剪切波弹性成像(SWE)与磁共振成像(MRI)在区分乳腺良性和恶性病变方面的诊断性能:方法:2023 年 6 月对 MEDLINE、Web of Science、SCOPUS 和 Google Scholar 进行了文献检索。纳入的研究以乳腺成像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)和组织病理学为参考标准。采用双变量随机效应模型计算灵敏度、特异性、诊断几率比(DOR)、阳性和阴性似然比以及曲线下面积(AUC)。进行了元回归亚组分析:结果:共纳入了 9 项研究和 536 个病灶。MRI 与 UE 的汇总敏感性没有差异[MRI:94% (95% CI:88.2%-96.9%) vs UE:90% (95% CI:84.7%-93.1%);P=0.153],但特异性存在差异[UE:78% (95% CI:66.3%-86.4%) vs MRI:71.3% (95% CI:52.1%-85%);P=0.0065]。应变 UE 的特异性更高,灵敏度与 SWE 相似[应变 UE:0.85(95% CI:0.71-0.93) vs SWE:0.72(95% 0.58-0.83);P=0.017;应变 UE:0.87(95% CI 0.79-0.93) vs SWE:0.91(95% CI 0.85-0.95);P=0.311]。MRI与UE的AUC相似[分别为0.91(95% CI 0.87-0.95)vs 0.92(95% CI 0.88-0.95);P=0.452],DOR也相似[MRI:38.083(95% CI:12.401-116.957)vs UE:30.395(95% CI:16.572-55.75);P>0.05]。元回归分析发现 MRI、应变 UE 和 SWE 的诊断准确性无显著差异:我们的研究结果表明,与磁共振成像相比,超导电子显微镜在区分乳腺良性和恶性病变方面具有足够的性能。
期刊介绍:
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.