Li Zhifan, Gao Ya, Gong Hengxin, Feng Wen, Ma Qinqin, Li Jinkui, Lu Xingru, Wang Xiaohui, Lei Junqiang
The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023 May;57(5):1392-1403. doi: 10.1002/jmri.28399. Epub 2022 Aug 29.
Accurate diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM) of breast cancer patients is important to guide local and systemic treatment.
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities for ALNM in patients with breast cancer.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
Sixty-one original articles with 8011 participants.
1.5 T and 3.0 T.
We used the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools to assess the risk of bias in eligible studies. The identified articles assessed ultrasonography (US), MRI, mammography, ultrasound elastography (UE), PET, CT, PET/CT, scintimammography, and PET/MRI.
We used random-effects conventional meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses for data analyses. We used sensitivity and specificity, relative sensitivity and specificity, superiority index, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) analysis to compare the diagnostic value of different imaging modalities.
Sixty-one studies evaluated nine imaging modalities. At patient level, sensitivities of the nine imaging modalities ranged from 0.27 to 0.84 and specificities ranged from 0.84 to 0.95. Patient-based NMA showed that UE had the highest superiority index (5.95) with the highest relative sensitivity of 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.29) among all imaging methods when compared to US. At lymph node level, MRI had the highest superiority index (6.91) with highest relative sensitivity of 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01-1.23) and highest relative specificity of 1.11 (95% CI: 0.95-1.23) among all imaging methods when compared to US. SROCs also showed that UE and MRI had the largest area under the curve (AUC) at patient level and lymph node level of 0.92 and 0.94, respectively.
UE and MRI may be superior to other imaging modalities in the diagnosis of ALNM in breast cancer patients at the patient level and the lymph node level, respectively. Further studies are needed to provide high-quality evidence to validate our findings.
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
准确诊断乳腺癌患者的腋窝淋巴结转移(ALNM)对于指导局部和全身治疗至关重要。
评估不同成像方式对乳腺癌患者ALNM的诊断性能。
系统评价和网状Meta分析(NMA)。
61篇原始文章,共8011名参与者。
1.5T和3.0T。
我们使用QUADAS - 2和QUADAS - C工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。纳入的文章评估了超声检查(US)、磁共振成像(MRI)、乳腺钼靶摄影、超声弹性成像(UE)、正电子发射断层显像(PET)、计算机断层扫描(CT)、PET/CT、乳腺闪烁显像和PET/MRI。
我们使用随机效应传统Meta分析和贝叶斯网状Meta分析进行数据分析。我们使用灵敏度和特异度、相对灵敏度和特异度、优势指数以及汇总受试者工作特征曲线(SROC)分析来比较不同成像方式的诊断价值。
61项研究评估了9种成像方式。在患者层面,9种成像方式的灵敏度范围为0.27至0.84,特异度范围为0.84至0.95。基于患者的NMA显示,与US相比,UE在所有成像方法中具有最高的优势指数(5.95),相对灵敏度最高为1.13(95%置信区间[CI]:0.93 - 1.29)。在淋巴结层面,与US相比,MRI在所有成像方法中具有最高的优势指数(6.91),相对灵敏度最高为1.13(95%CI:1.01 - 1.23),相对特异度最高为1.11(95%CI:0.95 - 1.23)。SROCs还显示,UE和MRI在患者层面和淋巴结层面的曲线下面积(AUC)最大,分别为0.92和0.94。
在患者层面和淋巴结层面,UE和MRI在诊断乳腺癌患者的ALNM方面可能分别优于其他成像方式。需要进一步研究以提供高质量证据来验证我们的发现。
3 技术效能:2级