Meta-Analysis: Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Conventional Ultrasound for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions

Qian Li, Min Hu, Zhikui Chen, Changtian Li, Xi Zhang, Yiqing Song, Feixiang Xiang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), conventional ultrasound (US) combined with CEUS (US + CEUS) and US for distinguishing breast lesions. From thorough literature research, studies that compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS versus US or US + CEUS versus US, using pathology results as the gold standard, were included. A total of 10 studies were included, of which 9 compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS and US, and 5 studies compared US + CEUS and US. In those comparing CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84–0.88) versus 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69–0.75). In studies comparing US + CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.89) versus 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.84). In terms of diagnosing breast malignancy, areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic (of both CEUS (p = 0.003) and US + CEUS (p = 0.000) were statistically higher than that of US. Both CEUS alone and US + CEUS had better diagnostic performance than US in differentiation of breast lesions, and US + CEUS also had low negative likelihood ratio.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)919-929
Number of pages11
JournalUltrasound in Medicine and Biology
Volume44
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

breast
lesions
Meta-Analysis
Breast
ROC Curve
Area Under Curve
Ultrasonography
Pathology
Research
Neoplasms
likelihood ratio
sensitivity
pathology
receivers

Keywords

  • Breast
  • Contrast
  • Diagnosis
  • Meta-analysis
  • Ultrasonography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Biophysics
  • Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Cite this

Meta-Analysis : Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Conventional Ultrasound for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions. / Li, Qian; Hu, Min; Chen, Zhikui; Li, Changtian; Zhang, Xi; Song, Yiqing; Xiang, Feixiang.

In: Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 44, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 919-929.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Li, Qian ; Hu, Min ; Chen, Zhikui ; Li, Changtian ; Zhang, Xi ; Song, Yiqing ; Xiang, Feixiang. / Meta-Analysis : Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Conventional Ultrasound for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions. In: Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. 2018 ; Vol. 44, No. 5. pp. 919-929.
@article{522fb46472794eeba11a8feee6340334,
title = "Meta-Analysis: Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Conventional Ultrasound for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions",
abstract = "This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), conventional ultrasound (US) combined with CEUS (US + CEUS) and US for distinguishing breast lesions. From thorough literature research, studies that compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS versus US or US + CEUS versus US, using pathology results as the gold standard, were included. A total of 10 studies were included, of which 9 compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS and US, and 5 studies compared US + CEUS and US. In those comparing CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95{\%} CI: 0.91–0.95) versus 0.87 (95{\%} CI: 0.85–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95{\%} CI: 0.84–0.88) versus 0.72 (95{\%} CI: 0.69–0.75). In studies comparing US + CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.94 (95{\%} CI: 0.92–0.96) versus 0.87 (95{\%} CI: 0.84–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95{\%} CI: 0.82–0.89) versus 0.80 (95{\%} CI: 0.76–0.84). In terms of diagnosing breast malignancy, areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic (of both CEUS (p = 0.003) and US + CEUS (p = 0.000) were statistically higher than that of US. Both CEUS alone and US + CEUS had better diagnostic performance than US in differentiation of breast lesions, and US + CEUS also had low negative likelihood ratio.",
keywords = "Breast, Contrast, Diagnosis, Meta-analysis, Ultrasonography",
author = "Qian Li and Min Hu and Zhikui Chen and Changtian Li and Xi Zhang and Yiqing Song and Feixiang Xiang",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.01.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "919--929",
journal = "Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology",
issn = "0301-5629",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-Analysis

T2 - Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Conventional Ultrasound for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions

AU - Li, Qian

AU - Hu, Min

AU - Chen, Zhikui

AU - Li, Changtian

AU - Zhang, Xi

AU - Song, Yiqing

AU - Xiang, Feixiang

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), conventional ultrasound (US) combined with CEUS (US + CEUS) and US for distinguishing breast lesions. From thorough literature research, studies that compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS versus US or US + CEUS versus US, using pathology results as the gold standard, were included. A total of 10 studies were included, of which 9 compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS and US, and 5 studies compared US + CEUS and US. In those comparing CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84–0.88) versus 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69–0.75). In studies comparing US + CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.89) versus 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.84). In terms of diagnosing breast malignancy, areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic (of both CEUS (p = 0.003) and US + CEUS (p = 0.000) were statistically higher than that of US. Both CEUS alone and US + CEUS had better diagnostic performance than US in differentiation of breast lesions, and US + CEUS also had low negative likelihood ratio.

AB - This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), conventional ultrasound (US) combined with CEUS (US + CEUS) and US for distinguishing breast lesions. From thorough literature research, studies that compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS versus US or US + CEUS versus US, using pathology results as the gold standard, were included. A total of 10 studies were included, of which 9 compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS and US, and 5 studies compared US + CEUS and US. In those comparing CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84–0.88) versus 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69–0.75). In studies comparing US + CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.89) versus 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.84). In terms of diagnosing breast malignancy, areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic (of both CEUS (p = 0.003) and US + CEUS (p = 0.000) were statistically higher than that of US. Both CEUS alone and US + CEUS had better diagnostic performance than US in differentiation of breast lesions, and US + CEUS also had low negative likelihood ratio.

KW - Breast

KW - Contrast

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Ultrasonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043359720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043359720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.01.022

DO - 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.01.022

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29530434

AN - SCOPUS:85043359720

VL - 44

SP - 919

EP - 929

JO - Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

JF - Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

SN - 0301-5629

IS - 5

ER -