Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative and Qualitative Elastography for Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Frontiers in oncology 2020-10, Vol.10, p.552177-552177
• Main Authors: Huang, Xiao-wen, Huang, Qing-xiu, Huang, Hui, Cheng, Mei-qing, Tong, Wen-juan, Xian, Meng-fei, Liang, Jin-yu, Wang, Wei
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: axillary lymph node metastasis; breast cancer; diagnose; elastography; meta-analysis; Oncology
• ISSN: 2234-943X; 2234-943X
• DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.552177

Background: Studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the diagnostic performance of ultrasound elastography for axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM) in breast cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound elastography (divided into quantitative and qualitative elastography) for ALNM in patients with breast cancer. Methods: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies exploring the diagnostic performance of ultrasound elastography for ALNM in patients with breast cancer. The included studies were divided into quantitative and qualitative elastography groups to perform separate meta-analyses. The diagnostic performance was investigated with pooled sensitivity and specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Results: Seven and 11 studies were included in the quantitative and qualitative elastography meta-analyses, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity, DOR, and AUC with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were 0.82 (0.75, 0.87), 0.88 (0.78, 0.93), 33 (13, 83), and 0.89 (0.86, 0.91), respectively, for quantitative elastography and 0.81 (0.69, 0.89), 0.92 (0.79, 0.97), 46 (12, 181), and 0.92 (0.89, 0.94), respectively, for qualitative elastography. No significant publication bias existed. Fagan plots demonstrated good clinical utility. However, substantial heterogeneity existed among studies. Study design, measurement, and reference standard served as potential sources of heterogeneity for quantitative studies, which were measurement and reference standard for qualitative studies. Conclusions: Both quantitative and qualitative elastography seem to be feasible, non-invasive diagnostic tools for ALNM in breast cancer. Nevertheless, the results must be interpreted carefully, paying attention to heterogeneity issues, especially for quantitative elastography studies.