Evaluación de la aplicabilidad del léxico BI-RADS® de la resonancia magnética para la interpretación de la mamografía digital con contraste

Travieso-Aja, M. M.; Maldonado-Saluzzi, D.; Naranjo-Santana, P.; Fernandez-Ruiz, C; Severino-Rondón, W.; Rodríguez, Mario; Luzardo, Octavio Luis Pérez

doi:10.1016/j.rx.2019.05.002

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, homogeneous, heterogeneous, and rim enhancement were not statistically associated with malignancy. This was inconsistent with the findings of previous studies 11,33 which indicated that malignant lesions showed a heterogeneous enhancement while benign lesions showed a homogeneous enhancement. Due to the small sample size, the results may be contradictory and need to be carefully evaluated.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostic performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Lin,

Li,

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeContrast‐enhanced spectral imaging (CEM) is a new mammography technique, but its diagnostic value in dense breasts is still inconclusive. We did a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts.Materials and MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically until August 6, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies were included to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. The QUADAS‐2 tool was used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. STATA V.16.0 and Review Manager V.5.3 were used to meta‐analyze the included studies.ResultsA total of 10 studies (827 patients, 958 lesions) were included. These 10 studies reported the diagnostic performance of CEM for the workup of suspicious lesions in patients with dense breasts. The summary sensitivity and summary specificity were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70–0.89), respectively. Enhanced lesions, circumscribed margins, and malignancy were statistically correlated. The relative malignancy OR value of the enhanced lesions was 28.11 (95% CI, 6.84–115.48). The relative malignancy OR value of circumscribed margins was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07–0.45).ConclusionCEM has high diagnostic performance in the workup of suspicious findings in dense breasts, and when lesions are enhanced and have irregular margins, they are often malignant.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…When a lesion has circumscribed margins, its probability of being malignant is lower than that of being benign. This was consistent with a recent report 33 . In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, homogeneous, heterogeneous, and rim enhancement were not statistically associated with malignancy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%