Altmetrics
Downloads
160
Views
58
Comments
0
A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
04 July 2023
Posted:
10 July 2023
You are already at the latest version
modality | advantages | disadvantages | Diagnostic performance | Ref | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Diagnostic performance for: | ||||
MG |
- detect BC, benign tumors, and cysts - find mammary gland calcification |
- not suitable for people under 40 years - cannot be taken more than twice a year - limited in imaging DB tissue |
N/A | 97% | 64.5% | Breast cancer detection. | [10,11,12] |
DBT | - a n increase in cancer detection and a decrease in the recall rate compare to MG - better characterized invasive lobular carcinoma, lower histologic grade HER-2-negative lesions, lesions presenting as masses, or lesions with architectural distortion compared to FFDM - visualize the lesion margin better than FFDM - DBT with SM is a better method than FFDM for detecting mass, calcification, and asymmetry |
- limited in imaging DB tissue | N/A | 95.5% | 78.8% | Malignancy detection. |
[24,27,28,32] |
CEM |
- higher sensitivity and specificity than MG and DM alone - has sensitivity and specificity comparable to CE-MRI - has sensitivity higher than SM, DBT, and DBT plus US - has a detection rate similar to US and MRI and significantly higher than FFDM - has a high sensitivity in preoperative staging of BC compared to DM |
- has less specificity than MG - visualize the lesion margin is less compared to DBT - Not suitable in patients with spreading of unifocal disease, Ductal carcinoma in situ histotypes, lesion size less than 10 mm, and index lesion with microcalcification - need to inject contrast agents - CEM-guided biopsy is unavailable - does not have sufficient sensitivity to detect poorly advanced cancers - does not show cancers with increased parenchyma in the background or near the chest wall |
(0.768-0.924) | (86.2%-98%) | (57.9%-94.1%) | Cancer detection and breast cancer classification into the malignant and benign. | [46,48,50,51,54,59,60,61] |
US | - does not require ionizing radiation or intravenous contrast - portability, lower cost than MG, the perfect imaging tool for biopsy, and versatility, as it distinguishes cystic masses from solid masses - can be utilized as an early diagnosis tool - show axillary and lymph node lesions witch might not be seen in CEM - detect benign lesions is higher than that of CEM - can distinguish dense tissue from breast cancer, unlike MG |
- depends on the experience of the radiologist - has unsatisfactory false positives and false negatives in asymptomatic women |
N/A | (49%-90.6%) | (34%-88.4%) | Screening of dense breast and breast cancer classification into the malignant and benign. |
[73,78,79,81,82,83] |
MRI | - high sensitivity and specificity and is suitable for patients who have breast-conserving surgery - high sensitivity in diagnosing BC regardless of breast density - Breast MRI is more sensitive than MG, US, or physical examination - has more valuable for identifying chest wall invasion, internal breast metastasis, and axillary lymph node than CEM - Abbreviated breast MRI has a higher BC detection rate than DBT - MRMG is more cost-effective than MG plus US |
-high cost and time of its scanning - false positive results, not suitable in patients with claustrophobia, -not suitable for hypersensitivity to contrast agent |
0.93 | (51%-100%) | (94.9%-96.1%) | Breast cancer detection | [11,91,95,99,100,105,106,119] |
DCE-MRI | - not limited by breast tissue density Unlike MG - could show lesions regardless of size - has fewer side effects of contrast agents and no ionizing radiation than CEM - has a higher sensitivity than CEM - DCE-MRI is better than MG and US for the early detection of BC |
- non-specificity - time-consuming - costly - high false positive rates - poor patient tolerance - have contraindications - requires the injection of a contrast agent -overlap between morphological features and kinetic patterns of benign and malignant lesions -menstrual cycle can lead to a non-specific increase of breast parenchyma in it |
N/A | (81%-100%) | ~97% | Breast cancer detection | [46,111,112,113,114,115,116,120,121,122] |
DWI | -works better than MG and US -highest sensitivity of detection compared to DCE-MRI and MRS -can identify breast lesions better than conventional MRI |
-less sensitive than DCE MRI but higher than MG and US -less resolution in soft tissues than DCE MRI -spatial resolution is still very low - small cancer foci may not be seen on ADC maps |
0.85 | (63%-100%) | (46%-97%) | Breast cancer classification into the malignant and benign. | [111,115,125,126,128,129] |
Authors and Ref. | Nanoparticles | Imaging modality | Application | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Imaging | Therapy | ||||
Naha et al. [62] | Gold silver alloy nanoparticles (GSAN) | DEM and CT | ✓ | GSAN produce strong DEM and CT contrast in images, and has potential for breast cancer screening. | |
Nieves et al. [63] | Silver telluride NPs (Ag2Te NPs) | DEM and CT | ✓ | Strong X-ray contrast for breast cancer screening. | |
Karunamuni et al. [64] | silica-encapsulated silver NPs | DEM | ✓ | Silver nanoparticles produce strong contrast in vivo using DEM imaging systems for breast cancer detection. | |
Cole et al. [65] | bisphosphonate-functionalized gold NPs (BP-Au NPs) | CT and X-Ray imaging | ✓ | targeted BP-Au NPs enabled improved sensitivity and specificity for the detection of microcalcifications in breast cancer with CT imaging. | |
Cole et al. [66] | bisphosphonate-functionalized gold NPs (BP-Au NPs) | CT and X-Ray imaging | ✓ | improved sensitivity and specificity for microcalcifications detection in radiographically dense mammary tissues. | |
Milgroom et al. [88] | Mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs), functionalized with the monoclonal antibody Herceptin® | US | ✓ | ✓ | The results demonstrated that, MSNs as a stable, biocompatible, and effective diagnostic and therapeutic agent for US breast cancer imaging, diagnosis, and treatment. |
Cao et al. [90] | Exosome-Based NPs | US | ✓ | Exosome-Based NPs could serve as effective nanosonosensitizers for safe and targeted cancer treatment | |
Salimi et al. [146] | Fourth-generation dendrimer-coated iron-oxide nanoparticles (G4@IONPs) | MRI | ✓ | ✓ | The results showed that G4@IONPs improved significantly transverse relaxivity (r2). |
Xiao et al. [148] | Poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG)-coated, manganese-doped iron oxide nanocomposites (Mn-IONPs@PEG) | MRI | ✓ | The Mn-IONPs@PEG exhibited good properties for MRI imaging as a T1/T2 dual-contrast MRI contrast agent for cancer detection. | |
Huang et al. [149] | PEGylated ultrasmall MnO NPs | MRI | ✓ | MnO NPs showed a great potential to the T1-weighted MRI diagnosis of tumor. | |
Tao et al. [151] | small Fe3O4 NPs | MRI | ✓ | ✓ | Fe3O4@PD-based system has the potential to be a multifunctional nanodrug delivery system, and as a smart theragnostic platform for cancer detection and treatment. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated