Table 2:

Evaluation of CEM in the Diagnostic Setting

Clinical Indication	Study and Year	No. of Women	Modalities Compared	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)
Problem Solving	Lobbes et al, 2014 (33)	113	CEM vs FFDM	100	88	76	100
				97	42	40	97
	Lalji et al, 2016 (18)	199	CEM vs LE	97	70	58	98
				93	36	39	93
Symptomatic patient	Tennant et al, 2016 (34)	100	CEM vs LE	95	81	-	-
				84	63
	Luczynska et al, 2016 (32)	116	CEM vs FFDM vs US	100	27	76	100
				90	22	73	47
				92	20	73	50
	Sorin et al, 2020 (38)	138	CEM vs LE vs US	100	73	57	100
				95	84	67	98
				100	68	52	100
Disease extent	Dromain et al, 2011 (24)	120	CEM vs FFDM vs FFDM + US	93	56	73	85
				80	50	67	66
				94	39	67	82
	Jochelson et al, 2013 (3)	52	CEM vs FFDM vs MRI	96		97
				81	-	-	-
				96		85
	Fallenberg et al, 2014 (4)	80	CEM vs FFDM vs MRI	100
				83	-	-	-
				97
	Lee-Felker et al, 2017 (5)	52	CEM vs MRI	94	17	93	20
				99	4	60	67
Neoadjuvant therapy response	ElSaid et al, 2017 (50)	21	CEM	100	83	-	-
	Iotti et al, 2017 (47)	46	CEM vs MRI	100	84	57	100
				87	60	32	96
	Barra et al, 2018 (48)	33	CEM vs FFDM vs MRI	76	88	95	54
				76	63	86	45
				92	75	92	75
	Patel et al, 2018 (49)	65	CEM vs MRI	95	67	56	97
				95	69	58	97
Posttreatment breast	Helal et al, 2019 (51)	76	CEM vs FFDM	91	75	78	90
				50	22	38	32

Note.–CEM = contrast-enhanced mammography, FFDM = full-field digital mammography, LE = low-energy imaging, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, NPV = negative predictive value, PPV = positive predictive value.