-
European Radiology Aug 2020To summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and...
OBJECTIVES
To summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and diagnosis of microcalcifications.
METHODS
We ran an extended search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Engineering Village and Web of Science. Diagnostic test studies, experimental breast phantom studies and a Monte Carlo phantom study were included. A narrative approach was selected to summarise and compare findings regarding the detection of microcalcifications, while a hierarchical model with bivariate analysis was used for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing microcalcifications.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Phantom studies suggested that the size of microcalcifications, magnification or zoom factor, exposure factors and detector technology determine whether digital zoom is equivalent to magnification mammography in the detection of microcalcifications. Pooled sensitivity for magnification and zoom calculated from the diagnostic test studies was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-0.94), respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.51-0.58) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.50-0.62), respectively. The differences between the sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital zoom may be equivalent to magnification mammography. Diagnostic test studies and phantom studies using newer detector technology would contribute additional knowledge on this topic.
KEY POINTS
• The performance of digital zoom is comparable to magnification for detecting microcalcifications when newer detector technology and optimised imaging procedures are utilised. • The accuracy of digital zoom appears equivalent to geometric magnification in diagnosing microcalcifications.
Topics: Breast Diseases; Calcinosis; Female; Humans; Mammography; Phantoms, Imaging; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 32222798
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) May 2022Cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) remain the main 3D modalities for X-ray breast imaging. This study aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.
BACKGROUND
Cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) remain the main 3D modalities for X-ray breast imaging. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and meta-analyze the comparison of diagnostic accuracy of CBBCT and DBT to characterize breast cancers.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers identified screening on diagnostic studies from 1 January 2015 to 30 December 2021, with at least reported sensitivity and specificity for both CBBCT and DBT. A univariate pooled meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model to estimate the sensitivity and specificity while other diagnostic parameters like the area under the ROC curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were estimated using the bivariate model.
RESULTS
The pooled sensitivity specificity, LR+ and LR- and AUC at 95% confidence interval are 86.7% (80.3-91.2), 87.0% (79.9-91.8), 6.28 (4.40-8.96), 0.17 (0.12-0.25) and 0.925 for the 17 included studies in DBT arm, respectively, while, 83.7% (54.6-95.7), 71.3% (47.5-87.2), 2.71 (1.39-5.29), 0.20 (0.04-1.05), and 0.831 are the pooled sensitivity specificity, LR+ and LR- and AUC for the five studies in the CBBCT arm, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrates that DBT shows improved diagnostic performance over CBBCT regarding all estimated diagnostic parameters; with the statistical improvement in the AUC of DBT over CBBCT. The CBBCT might be a useful modality for breast cancer detection, thus we recommend more prospective studies on CBBCT application.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Female; Humans; Mammography; Prospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35591290
DOI: 10.3390/s22093594 -
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 -
Journal of Women's Health (2002) Dec 2022Breast arterial calcification (BAC), which may be detected during screening mammography, is hypothesized to be a noninvasive imaging marker that may enhance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Breast arterial calcification (BAC), which may be detected during screening mammography, is hypothesized to be a noninvasive imaging marker that may enhance cardiovascular risk assessment. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to assess the association between BAC and coronary artery disease (CAD) by conducting a meta-analysis. We conducted a literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings, from inception through December 24, 2019. The outcome of interest was the presence of CAD in patients with BAC. This was reported as crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR). A total of 18 studies comprising 33,494 women (mean age of 60.8 ± 3.7 years, 25% with diabetes, 57% with hypertension, and 21% with history of tobacco smoking) were included in the current meta-analysis. The prevalence of BAC among study participants was 10%. There was a statistically significant association between BAC and CAD (unadjusted OR 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63-2.81, < 0.001, = 76.5%). Moreover, adjusted estimates were available from 10 studies and BAC was an independent predictor of CAD (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.68-3.41, < 0.001, = 61.7%). In the meta-regression analysis, covariates included year of publication, age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and history of tobacco smoking. None of these study covariates explained the heterogeneity across studies. BAC detected as part of screening mammography is a promising noninvasive imaging marker that may enhance CAD risk prediction in women. The clinical value of BAC for cardiovascular risk stratification merits further evaluation in large prospective studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Coronary Artery Disease; Mammography; Coronary Angiography; Vascular Calcification; Breast; Prospective Studies; Breast Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Early Detection of Cancer; Breast Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus; Hypertension
PubMed: 33826862
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8733 -
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 -
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Innovations,... Dec 2021The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of measures designed to mitigate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on worldwide cancer screening. We... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of measures designed to mitigate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on worldwide cancer screening. We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE without language restrictions for studies published between January 1, 2021, and February 10, 2021. Studies selected for full-text review contained data on patients screened for any type of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic and comparison data from a time interval just prior to the pandemic. Data were obtained through dual extraction. All the included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed on 13 studies: 7 on screening mammography, 5 on colon cancer screening, and 3 on cervical cancer screening. Two of our studies reported on more than one type of cancer screening. The screening outcomes were reported as pooled incidence rate ratios using the inverse variance method and random effects models. All studies included in our meta-analysis reported the number of patients screened for cancer in defined time intervals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that the pooled incidence rate ratios were significantly lower for screening during the COVID-19 pandemic for breast cancer (0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.77; <.001), colon cancer (0.11; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.24; <.001), and cervical cancer (0.10; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.24; <.001). These findings may add further morbidity and mortality to this public health crisis.
PubMed: 34693211
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.10.003 -
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 -
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