-
Journal of Medicine and Life Dec 2023Early detection measures for breast cancer, such as breast self-exams, clinical breast exams, and mammography, have considerable benefits in effectively reducing breast... (Review)
Review
Early detection measures for breast cancer, such as breast self-exams, clinical breast exams, and mammography, have considerable benefits in effectively reducing breast cancer-related mortality. As the incidence of breast cancer is steadily increasing, it is crucial to raise awareness on early detection. This scoping review assessed the current knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceptions of breast cancer screening among female medical students. We used the six phases of Arksey and O'Malley's framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) template. Our analysis included 43 articles from Google Scholar and PubMed search engines, focusing on female medical students. Our results showed that most female medical students had a satisfactory level of knowledge about the most common signs, symptoms, and early detection methods of breast cancer. Generally, their attitude and perceptions were positive regarding breast cancer-related preventive measures. However, the level of practice was reduced. Further efforts are necessary to promote and improve the practice of breast self-examination, clinical breast exams, and mammography among female medical students. Potential interventions could include modifications to the medical curriculum and social media campaigns to enhance engagement and adoption of these practices.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Students, Medical; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Mammography
PubMed: 38585536
DOI: 10.25122/jml-2023-0412 -
BMC Women's Health Feb 2024The incidence of breast cancer among Chinese women has gradually increased in recent years. This study aims to analyze the situation of breast cancer screening programs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The incidence of breast cancer among Chinese women has gradually increased in recent years. This study aims to analyze the situation of breast cancer screening programs in China and compare the cancer detection rates (CDRs), early-stage cancer detection rates (ECDRs), and the proportions of early-stage cancer among different programs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in multiple literature databases. Studies that were published between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2023 were retrieved. A random effects model was employed to pool the single group rate, and subgroup analyses were carried out based on screening model, time, process, age, population, and follow-up method.
RESULTS
A total of 35 studies, including 47 databases, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Compared with opportunistic screening, the CDR (1.32‰, 95% CI: 1.10‰-1.56‰) and the ECDR (0.82‰, 95% CI: 0.66‰-0.99‰) were lower for population screening, but the proportion of early-stage breast cancer (80.17%, 95% CI: 71.40%-87.83%) was higher. In subgroup analysis, the CDR of population screening was higher in the urban group (2.28‰, 95% CI: 1.70‰-2.94‰), in the breast ultrasonography (BUS) in parallel with mammography (MAM) group (3.29‰, 95% CI: 2.48‰-4.21‰), and in the second screening follow-up group (2.47‰, 95% CI: 1.64‰-3.47‰), and the proportion of early-stage breast cancer was 85.70% (95% CI: 68.73%-97.29%), 88.18% (95% CI: 84.53%-91.46%), and 90.05% (95% CI: 84.07%-94.95%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
There were significant differences between opportunistic and population screening programs. The results of these population screening studies were influenced by the screening process, age, population, and follow-up method. In the future, China should carry out more high-quality and systematic population-based screening programs to improve screening coverage and service.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Mammography; China; Ultrasonography, Mammary; Mass Screening
PubMed: 38321439
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-02924-4 -
International Journal of Molecular... May 2023Breast cancer continues to be the leading cause of death in women worldwide. Mammography, which is the current gold standard technique used to diagnose it, presents... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Breast cancer continues to be the leading cause of death in women worldwide. Mammography, which is the current gold standard technique used to diagnose it, presents strong limitations in early ages where breast cancer is much more aggressive and fatal. MiRNAs present in numerous body fluids might represent a new line of research in breast cancer biomarkers, especially oncomiRNAs, known to play an important role in the suppression and development of neoplasms. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate dysregulated miRNA biomarkers and their diagnostic accuracy in breast cancer. Two independent researchers reviewed the included studies according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number "CRD42021256338". Observational case-control-based studies analyzing concentrations of microRNAs which have been published within the last 10 years were selected, and the concentrations of miRNAs in women with breast cancer and healthy controls were analyzed. Random-effects meta-analyses of miR-155 were performed on the studies which provided enough data to calculate diagnostic odds ratios. We determined that 34 microRNAs were substantially dysregulated and could be considered biomarkers of breast cancer. Individually, miR-155 provided better diagnostic results than mammography on average. However, when several miRNAs are used to screen, forming a panel, sensitivity and specificity rates improve, and they can be associated with classic biomarkers such us CA-125 or CEA. Based on the results of our meta-analysis, miR-155 might be a promising diagnostic biomarker for this patient population.
Topics: Humans; Female; MicroRNAs; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Breast; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 37175974
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24098270 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... May 2017Identify factors related to the health system that lead to a late diagnosis of breast cancer in Brazil. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE:
Identify factors related to the health system that lead to a late diagnosis of breast cancer in Brazil.
METHOD:
We performed a systematic review in the PubMed and LILACS databases using as keywords "Breast cancer," "system of health" and "Brazil or Brasil." We evaluated the content of the articles using the PRISMA methodology based on PICTOS. The final date was 12/16/2015. We were able to identify 94 publications in PubMed and 43 publications in LILACS. After assessing the title and summary, and excluding 21 repeated publications, we selected 51 publications for full evaluation. At this stage, we excluded 21 articles, with 30 publications remaining for study.
RESULTS:
The population coverage is low, and there are problems related to the quality of mammography. Patients with lower income, nonwhite and less educated are more vulnerable. We observed punctual and initial experiences in breast cancer screening. Diagnosis and treatment flows must be improved. The inequality in mortality reflects the differences related to screening structure and treatment. Better results are observed in well-structured services.
CONCLUSION:
There are several barriers in the health system leading to advanced stage at diagnosis and limiting the survival outcomes. The establishment of a rapid and effective order for diagnosis and treatment, based on hierarchical flow, are important steps to be improved in the public health context.
Topics: Age Factors; Brazil; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Health Services Accessibility; Healthcare Disparities; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; National Health Programs; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 28724046
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.63.05.466 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Jul 2017As breast cancer screening guidelines have changed recently, additional investigation is needed to understand changes in women's behavior after using breast cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
As breast cancer screening guidelines have changed recently, additional investigation is needed to understand changes in women's behavior after using breast cancer screening patient decision aids (BCS-PtDAs) and the potential effect on mammography utilization. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effect of BCS-PtDAs on changes in women's intentions to undergo screening mammography and whether women deciding to begin or discontinue screening mammography displayed similar changes in screening intentions after using a BCS-PtDA.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Health Technology Assessment Database, PsycARTICLES, and cited references in eligible papers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, published through August 24, 2016. The proportions of women who did and not intend to undergo screening and who were uncertain about undergoing screening mammography were pooled, using risk ratios (RR) and random effects. According to the protocol, RCTs or observational studies and any language were considered eligible for systematic review if they included data about women for which shared decision making is recommended.
RESULTS
We ultimately included six studies with screening intention data for 2040 women. Compared to usual care, the use of BCS-PtDAs in three RCTs resulted in significantly more women deciding not to undergo screening mammography (RR 1.48 [95% CI 1.04-2.13]; P = 0.03), particularly for younger (38-50 years) women (1.77 [1.34-2.34]; P < 0.001). The use of BCS-PtDAs had a non-significant effect on the intentions of older women (69-89 years) to discontinue screening.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of BCS-PtDAs increased younger women's reluctance to undergo screening for breast cancer. The implementation of such BCS-PtDAs in clinical practice would be expected to result in a 77% increase in the number of younger women (aged 38-50) who do not intend to be screened, and as a consequence, may reduce utilization of screening mammography.
REGISTRATION
The protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database, #CRD42016036695.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Patient Participation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28289963
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-017-4027-9 -
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic... 2020Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) is an imaging technique which is increasing focuses on imaging the chest instead of imaging the whole body. The aim of this study... (Review)
Review
Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) is an imaging technique which is increasing focuses on imaging the chest instead of imaging the whole body. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and coste-ffectiveness of PEM technology, as compared with PET, as a diagnostic method used for breast cancer patients. The present study was a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which was conducted via a systematic review of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the methods based on domestic evidence. To evaluate the efficacy of the PEM diagnostic method, as compared with PET, we used efficacy indices, including Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, PPV, and NPV. The required data were collected through a meta-analysis of studies published in electronic databases from 1990 to 2016. In addition, direct costs in both methods were estimated and finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the results of the study. Also, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effects of parameters' uncertainty in the model. In this study, we used STATA software to integrate the results of studies with similar parameters. A total of 722 cases (N) were obtained from the five final studies. The results of the meta-analysis performed on the collected data showed that the two methods were identical in terms of the Specificity and PPV parameters. However, as to Sensitivity, NPV, and Accuracy parameters, the PEM method was superior to the PET for diagnosis of primary breast cancer. The total cost of using PEM and PET was $1737385.7 and $1940903.5, respectively, and the cost of a one-time scan (cost per unit) using PEM and PET devices was $86.82 and $157.63, respectively. As compared with the PET method, the use of the PEM diagnostic method for diagnosis of breast cancer was cost-effective in terms of all the five studied parameters (it was definitely cost-effective for four parameters and was also considered as cost-effective for another index, since ICER was below the threshold). The results showed that the use of PEM technology for the diagnosis of primary breast cancer is more cost-effective than PET technology; thus, due to the wide range of PET technology in different fields, it is recommended that this method should be used in other areas of priority.
PubMed: 33315994
DOI: 10.34171/mjiri.34.100 -
BMC Cancer Apr 2018This study aimed to systematically review and to meta-analyse the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in women with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to systematically review and to meta-analyse the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in women with mammographically dense breasts in screening and diagnosis.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers identified screening or diagnostic studies reporting at least one of four outcomes (cancer detection rate-CDR, recall rate, sensitivity and specificity) for DBT and DM in women with mammographically dense breasts. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of CDR and recall rate used a random effects model. Summary ROC curve summarized sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included (five diagnostic; eleven screening). In diagnosis, DBT increased sensitivity (84%-90%) versus DM alone (69%-86%) but not specificity. DBT improved CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.31). In screening, DBT + DM increased CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.20-1.47 for retrospective studies; RR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.08-2.11 for prospective studies). Recall rate was significantly reduced by DBT + DM in retrospective studies (RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80) but not in two prospective studies (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.76-1.63).
CONCLUSION
In women with mammographically dense breasts, DBT+/-DM increased CDR significantly (versus DM) in screening and diagnosis. In diagnosis, DBT+/-DM increased sensitivity but not specificity. The effect of DBT + DM on recall rate in screening dense breasts varied between studies.
Topics: Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Quality Assurance, Health Care
PubMed: 29615072
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3 -
European Radiology Aug 2023In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies suggest response of DCIS to NST. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise and examine the current literature on imaging findings for different imaging modalities evaluating DCIS response to NST. More specifically, imaging findings of DCIS pre- and post-NST, and the effect of different pathological complete response (pCR) definitions, will be evaluated on mammography, breast MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).
METHODS
PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies investigating NST response of IBC, including information on DCIS. Imaging findings and response evaluation of DCIS were assessed for mammography, breast MRI, and CEM. A meta-analysis was conducted per imaging modality to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting residual disease between pCR definition no residual invasive disease (ypT0/is) and no residual invasive or in situ disease (ypT0).
RESULTS
Thirty-one studies were included. Calcifications on mammography are related to DCIS, but can persist despite complete response of DCIS. In 20 breast MRI studies, an average of 57% of residual DCIS showed enhancement. A meta-analysis of 17 breast MRI studies confirmed higher pooled sensitivity (0.86 versus 0.82) and lower pooled specificity (0.61 versus 0.68) for detection of residual disease when DCIS is considered pCR (ypT0/is). Three CEM studies suggest the potential benefit of simultaneous evaluation of calcifications and enhancement.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS, and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on breast MRI and CEM. Moreover, pCR definition effects diagnostic performance of breast MRI. Given the lack of evidence on imaging findings of response of the DCIS component to NST, further research is demanded.
KEY POINTS
• Ductal carcinoma in situ has shown to be responsive to neoadjuvant systemic therapy, but imaging studies mainly focus on response of the invasive tumour. • The 31 included studies demonstrate that after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography. • The definition of pCR has impact on the diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting residual disease, and when DCIS is considered pCR, pooled sensitivity was slightly higher and pooled specificity slightly lower.
Topics: Humans; Female; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Breast Neoplasms; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Breast; Mammography; Calcinosis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
PubMed: 37020070
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09547-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false-negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow-up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all-cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J-START (Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False-negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false-positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false-positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J-START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non-dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non-dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J-START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening-detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real-life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non-dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false-positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen-detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Ultrasonography, Mammary; Early Detection of Cancer; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36999589
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009632.pub3 -
Radiography (London, England : 1995) Jan 2024A positive experience in mammography is essential for increasing patient attendance and reattendance at these examinations, whether conducted for diagnostic or screening... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
A positive experience in mammography is essential for increasing patient attendance and reattendance at these examinations, whether conducted for diagnostic or screening purposes. Mammograms indeed facilitate early disease detection, enhance the potential for cure, and consequently reduce breast cancer mortality. The main objective of this review was to identify and map the strategies aiming to improve the patient experience in diagnostic and screening mammography.
METHODS
This scoping review was performed following the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Searches were performed through databases of MEDLINE, Embase.com, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and three clinical trial registries. This review considered studies evaluating the effect of interventions, occurring within the mammography department, on the patient experience.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 8113 citations of which 60, matching the inclusion criteria, were included. The strategies were classified into eight categories. The most represented one was breast compression and positioning, followed by relaxation techniques and analgesic care, communication and information, screening equipment, examination procedures, patient-related factors, physical environment, and finally staff characteristics. The studied outcomes related to patient experience were mainly pain, anxiety, comfort, and satisfaction. Other types of outcomes were also considered in the studies such as image quality, technical parameters, or radiation dose. Most studies were conducted by radiographers, on female patients, and none mentioned the inclusion of male or transgender patients.
CONCLUSION
This review outlined a diversity of strategies to improve patient experience, although technique-based interventions were predominant. Further research is warranted, notably on psychological strategies, and on men and transgender people.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This scoping review provides guidance to healthcare providers and services for better patient/client-centered care.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Mammography; Pain; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 38141428
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2023.11.016