TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of radiography, digital breast tomosynthesis, micro-CT and ultrasound for margin assessment during breast surgery
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Manhoobi, Irina Palimaru
AU - Bodilsen, Anne
AU - Nijkamp, Jasper
AU - Pareek, Anuj
AU - Tramm, Trine
AU - Redsted, Søren
AU - Christiansen, Peer
N1 - Copyright © 2021 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Achieving adequate resection margins in breast conserving surgery is challenging and often demands more than one surgical procedure. We evaluated pooled diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity of radiological methods for intraoperative margin assessment and their impact on repeat surgery rate.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included studies using radiography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), micro-CT, and ultrasound for intraoperative margin assessment with the histological assessment as the reference method. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the studies for eligibility criteria and extracted data of the included studies independently. The quality assessment on diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used. A bivariate random effect model was used to obtained pooled sensitivity and specificity of the index tests in the meta-analysis.RESULTS: The systematic search resulted in screening of 798 unique records. Twenty-two articles with 29 radiological imaging methods were selected for meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity and area under the curve were calculated for each of the 4 subgroups in the meta-analysis respectively: Radiography; 52%, 77%, 60%, DBT; 67%, 76%, 76%, micro-CT; 68%, 69%, 72%, and ultrasound; 72%, 78%, 80%. The repeat surgery rate was poorly reported in the included studies.CONCLUSION: Ultrasound showed the highest and radiography the lowest diagnostic performance for intraoperative margin assessment. However, the heterogeneity between studies was high and the subgroups small. The radiological methods for margin assessment need further improvement to provide reliable guidance in the clinical workflow and to prevent repeat surgeries.
AB - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Achieving adequate resection margins in breast conserving surgery is challenging and often demands more than one surgical procedure. We evaluated pooled diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity of radiological methods for intraoperative margin assessment and their impact on repeat surgery rate.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included studies using radiography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), micro-CT, and ultrasound for intraoperative margin assessment with the histological assessment as the reference method. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the studies for eligibility criteria and extracted data of the included studies independently. The quality assessment on diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used. A bivariate random effect model was used to obtained pooled sensitivity and specificity of the index tests in the meta-analysis.RESULTS: The systematic search resulted in screening of 798 unique records. Twenty-two articles with 29 radiological imaging methods were selected for meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity and area under the curve were calculated for each of the 4 subgroups in the meta-analysis respectively: Radiography; 52%, 77%, 60%, DBT; 67%, 76%, 76%, micro-CT; 68%, 69%, 72%, and ultrasound; 72%, 78%, 80%. The repeat surgery rate was poorly reported in the included studies.CONCLUSION: Ultrasound showed the highest and radiography the lowest diagnostic performance for intraoperative margin assessment. However, the heterogeneity between studies was high and the subgroups small. The radiological methods for margin assessment need further improvement to provide reliable guidance in the clinical workflow and to prevent repeat surgeries.
KW - Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Mammography/methods
KW - Margins of Excision
KW - Radiography
KW - Sensitivity and Specificity
KW - X-Ray Microtomography
KW - Repeat surgery rate
KW - Breast conserving surgery
KW - Resection margins
KW - Specimen imaging
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122292885&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2021.12.006
DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2021.12.006
M3 - Review
C2 - 34996687
SN - 1076-6332
VL - 29
SP - 1560
EP - 1572
JO - Academic Radiology
JF - Academic Radiology
IS - 10
ER -