-
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related fatalities among women worldwide. Conventional screening and risk prediction models primarily rely on demographic...
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related fatalities among women worldwide. Conventional screening and risk prediction models primarily rely on demographic and patient clinical history to devise policies and estimate likelihood. However, recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, particularly deep learning (DL), have shown promise in the development of personalized risk models. These models leverage individual patient information obtained from medical imaging and associated reports. In this systematic review, we thoroughly investigated the existing literature on the application of DL to digital mammography, radiomics, genomics, and clinical information for breast cancer risk assessment. We critically analyzed these studies and discussed their findings, highlighting the promising prospects of DL techniques for breast cancer risk prediction. Additionally, we explored ongoing research initiatives and potential future applications of AI-driven approaches to further improve breast cancer risk prediction, thereby facilitating more effective screening and personalized risk management strategies.
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS
This study presents a comprehensive overview of imaging and non-imaging features used in breast cancer risk prediction using traditional and AI models. The features reviewed in this study included imaging, radiomics, genomics, and clinical features. Furthermore, this survey systematically presented DL methods developed for breast cancer risk prediction, aiming to be useful for both beginners and advanced-level researchers.
RESULTS
A total of 600 articles were identified, 20 of which met the set criteria and were selected. Parallel benchmarking of DL models, along with natural language processing (NLP) applied to imaging and non-imaging features, could allow clinicians and researchers to gain greater awareness as they consider the clinical deployment or development of new models. This review provides a comprehensive guide for understanding the current status of breast cancer risk assessment using AI.
CONCLUSION
This study offers investigators a different perspective on the use of AI for breast cancer risk prediction, incorporating numerous imaging and non-imaging features.
PubMed: 38571502
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1343627 -
British Journal of Cancer Feb 2024There is little evidence on the balance between potential benefits and harms of mammography screening in women 75 years and older. The aim of this systematic review was...
BACKGROUND
There is little evidence on the balance between potential benefits and harms of mammography screening in women 75 years and older. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the outcomes of mammography screening in women aged 75 years and older.
METHODS
A systematic review of mammography screening studies in women aged 75 years and over.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 27 observational studies and 9 modelling studies. Many of the included studies used no or uninformative comparison groups resulting in a potential bias towards the benefits of screening. Despite this, there was mixed evidence about the benefits and harms of continuing mammography screening beyond the age of 75 years. Some studies showed a beneficial effect on breast cancer mortality, and other studies showed no effect on mortality. Some studies showed some harms (false positive tests and recalls) being comparable to those in younger age-groups, with other studies showing increase in false positive screens and biopsies in older age-group. Although reported in fewer studies, there was consistent evidence of increased overdiagnosis in older age-groups.
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence available to make a recommendation for/against continuing breast screening beyond the age of 75 years. Future studies should use more informative comparisons and should estimate overdiagnosis given potentially substantial harm in this age-group due to competing causes of death. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020203131).
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Age Factors; Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 38030747
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02504-7 -
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Feb 2022Management remains controversial due to the risk of upgrade for malignancy from flat epithelial atypia (FEA). Data about the frequency and malignancy upgrade rates are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Management remains controversial due to the risk of upgrade for malignancy from flat epithelial atypia (FEA). Data about the frequency and malignancy upgrade rates are scant. Namely, observational follow-up is advised by many studies in cases of pure FEA on core biopsy and in the absence of an additional surgical excision. For cases of pure FEA, the American College of Surgeons no longer recommends surgical excision but rather recommends observation with clinical and imaging follow-up.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled upgrade of pure FEA following core needle biopsies.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE and Embase databases were conducted in December 2020. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A fixed- or random-effects model was utilized. Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by utilizing the I2 statistic and considered high if the I2 was greater than 50%. The random-effects model with the DerSimonian and Laird method was utilized to calculate the pooled upgrade rate and its 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
A total of 1924 pure FEA were analyzed among 59 included studies. The overall pooled upgrade rate to malignancy was 8.8%. The pooled upgrade rate for mammography only was 8.9%. The pooled upgrade rate for ultrasound was 14%. The pooled upgrade rate for mammography and ultrasound combined was 8.8%. The pooled upgrade rate for MRI-only cases was 27.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the guidelines for the management of pure FEA are variable, our data support that pure FEA diagnosed at core needle biopsy should undergo surgical excision since the upgrade rate >2%.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Female; Humans; Mammography
PubMed: 35150124
DOI: 10.1515/jom-2021-0206 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2022The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence and clinical outcomes of screening interventions and implementation trials in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and...
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence and clinical outcomes of screening interventions and implementation trials in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and also appraise some ethical issues related to screening in the region through quantitative and qualitative narrative synthesis of the literature.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies published on breast cancer screening interventions and outcomes in SSA. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the frequency and proportions of extracted variables, and narrative syntheses was used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the different screening modalities. The mixed methods appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of studies included in the review.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included, which consisted of 72,572 women in ten countries in SSA. 63% (8/15) of the included publications evaluated Clinical Breast Examination (CBE), 47% (7/15) evaluated mammography and 7% (1/15) evaluated ultrasound screening. The cancer detection rate was < 1/1000 to 3.3/1000 and 3.3/100 to 56/1000 for CBE and mammography screening respectively. There was a lot of heterogeneity in CBE methods, target age for screening and no clear documentation of screening interval. Cost-effective analyses showed that CBE screening linked to comprehensive cancer care is most cost effective. There was limited discussion of the ethics of screening, including the possible harms of screening in the absence of linkage to care. The gap between conducting good screening program and the appropriate follow-up with diagnosis and treatment remains one of the major challenges of screening in SSA.
DISCUSSION
There is insufficient real-world data to support the systematic implementation of national breast cancer screening in SSA. Further research is needed to answer important questions about screening, and national and international partnerships are needed to ensure that appropriate diagnostic and treatment modalities are available to patients who screen positive.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Africa South of the Sahara; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Ethics, Medical; Female; Health Plan Implementation; Humans; Mammography; Middle Aged; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Qualitative Research; Young Adult
PubMed: 35197002
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09299-5 -
British Journal of Cancer Jul 2022We examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens.
METHODS
We searched six databases (2009-2020) for studies comparing DBT and digital mammography (DM), and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and/or recall rate by breast density. Meta-analysis was performed to pool incremental CDR and recall rate for DBT (versus DM) for high- and low-density (dichotomised based on BI-RADS) and within-study differences in incremental estimates between high- and low-density. Screening settings (European/US) were compared.
RESULTS
Pooled within-study difference in incremental CDR for high- versus low-density was 1.0/1000 screens (95% CI: 0.3, 1.6; p = 0.003). Estimates were not significantly different in US (0.6/1000; 95% CI: 0.0, 1.3; p = 0.05) and European (1.9/1000; 95% CI: 0.3, 3.5; p = 0.02) settings (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). For incremental recall rate, within-study differences between density subgroups differed by setting (p < 0.001). Pooled incremental recall was less in high- versus low-density screens (-0.9%; 95% CI: -1.4%, -0.4%; p < 0.001) in US screening, and greater (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.3%; p = 0.001) in European screening.
CONCLUSIONS
DBT has differential incremental cancer detection and recall by breast density. Although incremental CDR is greater in high-density, a substantial proportion of additional cancers is likely to be detected in low-density screens. Our findings may assist screening programmes considering DBT for density-tailored screening.
Topics: Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Research
PubMed: 35352019
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01790-x -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Oct 2020Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%-91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%-93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%-88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Area Under Curve; Breast Neoplasms; Contrast Media; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Humans; Mammography; Middle Aged; Sensitivity and Specificity; Spectrum Analysis
PubMed: 32540554
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.005 -
European Radiology Apr 2022Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) in screening is problematic due to increased radiation by the double exposure. Synthesised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) in breast cancer screening is associated with higher cancer detection and lower recalls compared to digital mammography (DM) alone: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) in screening is problematic due to increased radiation by the double exposure. Synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) calculated from DBT datasets at no additional dose appears a sensible alternative compared to adding DM. This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on screening performance outcomes in women screened with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone.
METHODS
PubMed was searched from January 1, 2010, to September 2, 2020. Studies comparing DBT plus s2D to DM alone in breast cancer screening were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were estimated for cancer detection rates (CDR), recall rates, interval cancer rates (ICR), biopsy rates, and positive predictive values for recalls (PPV-1), for biopsies recommended (PPV-2), and for biopsies performed (PPV-3). Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out approach. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool.
RESULTS
Twelve papers covering 414,281 women were included from 766 records identified. CDR is increased ([RR, 95% CI] 1.35, 1.20-1.52), recall rates are decreased (0.79, 0.64-0.98), and PPV-1 is increased (1.69, 1.45-1.96) when using DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone. ICR and biopsy rates did not differ, but PPV-2 respectively PPV-3 increased with DBT plus s2D (1.57, 1.08-2.28 respectively 1.36, 1.17-1.58). Overall RoB of studies was assessed to be low.
CONCLUSION
Results show improved diagnostic outcomes with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone and underline the value of DBT in combination with s2D in breast cancer screening.
KEY POINTS
• DBT plus s2D is associated with higher CDR, lower recall rates, and a higher PPV-1 compared to DM alone in breast cancer screening. • No differences in biopsy rates were found between screening modalities, but PPV-2 and PPV-3 were higher in women screened with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone. • We identified inconsistent results of ICR in two studies comparing DBT plus s2D to DM alone-resulting in no differences when pooling ICR in meta-analysis.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Predictive Value of Tests
PubMed: 34694451
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08308-8 -
Scientific Reports May 2020We proposed to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), plus digital or synthetic mammography, with digital mammography alone in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We proposed to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), plus digital or synthetic mammography, with digital mammography alone in women attending population-based breast cancer screenings. We performed a systematic review and included controlled studies comparing DBT with digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Search strategies were applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. With moderate quality of evidence, in 1,000 screens, DBT plus digital mammography increased the overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 3 and 2 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.79, respectively). DBT plus synthetic mammography increased both overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 2 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54 and RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55, respectively). DBT did not improve recall, false positive and false negative rates. However due to heterogeneity the quality of evidence was low. For women attending population-based breast cancer screenings, DBT increases rates of overall and invasive breast cancer. There is no evidence with high or moderate quality showing that DBT compared with digital mammography decreases recall rates, as well as false positive and false negative rates.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Publication Bias; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 32409756
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64802-x -
BMJ Health & Care Informatics Feb 2024Breast cancer is the most common disease in women. Recently, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches have been dedicated to investigate breast cancer. An... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the most common disease in women. Recently, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches have been dedicated to investigate breast cancer. An overwhelming study has been done on XAI for breast cancer. Therefore, this study aims to review an XAI for breast cancer diagnosis from mammography and ultrasound (US) images. We investigated how XAI methods for breast cancer diagnosis have been evaluated, the existing ethical challenges, research gaps, the XAI used and the relation between the accuracy and explainability of algorithms.
METHODS
In this work, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and diagram were used. Peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings from PubMed, IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were searched. There is no stated date limit to filter the papers. The papers were searched on 19 September 2023, using various combinations of the search terms 'breast cancer', 'explainable', 'interpretable', 'machine learning', 'artificial intelligence' and 'XAI'. Rayyan online platform detected duplicates, inclusion and exclusion of papers.
RESULTS
This study identified 14 primary studies employing XAI for breast cancer diagnosis from mammography and US images. Out of the selected 14 studies, only 1 research evaluated humans' confidence in using the XAI system-additionally, 92.86% of identified papers identified dataset and dataset-related issues as research gaps and future direction. The result showed that further research and evaluation are needed to determine the most effective XAI method for breast cancer.
CONCLUSION
XAI is not conceded to increase users' and doctors' trust in the system. For the real-world application, effective and systematic evaluation of its trustworthiness in this scenario is lacking.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42023458665.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Artificial Intelligence; Mammography; Machine Learning; Algorithms
PubMed: 38307616
DOI: 10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100954