-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic... 2023Breast cancer is a non-communicable and common disease that accounts for a high percentage of deaths. Early diagnosis of this disease reduces the death rate. Screening... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is a non-communicable and common disease that accounts for a high percentage of deaths. Early diagnosis of this disease reduces the death rate. Screening methods such as digital mammography can help prevent or identify the disease earlier. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the cost-benefit of breast cancer using digital mammography.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted based on PRISMA 2020 checklist. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched without any time limitation on June 2022. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the CHEERS checklist. After data extraction, the results were synthesized by thematic content analysis.
RESULTS
During the search, 3468 records were identified, of which 1061 were duplicates. 2407 titles and abstracts screened in terms of inclusion criteria. Finally, after studying 20 fulltexts, three of them were included in the study. The quality of these articles was scored between 10 and 16. These studies were from Spain, Denmark, and the United States from 2000 to 2019. Two studies showed that digital mammography is not as effective as other screening methods.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study showed that digital mammography is not very cost-benefit for the health care system. An increase in its repetition frequency imposes more costs on the health system and doesn't have more benefits for it.
PubMed: 37750094
DOI: 10.47176/mjiri.37.89 -
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 -
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 -
BMC Bioinformatics Oct 2023Recent advancements in computing power and state-of-the-art algorithms have helped in more accessible and accurate diagnosis of numerous diseases. In addition, the...
BACKGROUND
Recent advancements in computing power and state-of-the-art algorithms have helped in more accessible and accurate diagnosis of numerous diseases. In addition, the development of de novo areas in imaging science, such as radiomics and radiogenomics, have been adding more to personalize healthcare to stratify patients better. These techniques associate imaging phenotypes with the related disease genes. Various imaging modalities have been used for years to diagnose breast cancer. Nonetheless, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), a state-of-the-art technique, has produced promising results comparatively. DBT, a 3D mammography, is replacing conventional 2D mammography rapidly. This technological advancement is key to AI algorithms for accurately interpreting medical images.
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS
This paper presents a comprehensive review of deep learning (DL), radiomics and radiogenomics in breast image analysis. This review focuses on DBT, its extracted synthetic mammography (SM), and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Furthermore, this survey provides systematic knowledge about DL, radiomics, and radiogenomics for beginners and advanced-level researchers.
RESULTS
A total of 500 articles were identified, with 30 studies included as the set criteria. Parallel benchmarking of radiomics, radiogenomics, and DL models applied to the DBT images could allow clinicians and researchers alike to have greater awareness as they consider clinical deployment or development of new models. This review provides a comprehensive guide to understanding the current state of early breast cancer detection using DBT images.
CONCLUSION
Using this survey, investigators with various backgrounds can easily seek interdisciplinary science and new DL, radiomics, and radiogenomics directions towards DBT.
Topics: Humans; Female; Deep Learning; Radiographic Image Enhancement; Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography
PubMed: 37884877
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-023-05515-6