-
Journal of Breast Imaging Jun 2024High mammographic density increases breast cancer risk and reduces mammographic sensitivity. We reviewed evidence on accuracy of supplemental MRI for women with dense...
BACKGROUND
High mammographic density increases breast cancer risk and reduces mammographic sensitivity. We reviewed evidence on accuracy of supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts at average or increased risk.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched 1995-2022. Articles were included if women received breast MRI following 2D or tomosynthesis mammography. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Analysis used independent studies from the articles. Fixed-effect meta-analytic summaries were estimated for predefined groups (PROSPERO: 230277).
RESULTS
Eighteen primary research articles (24 studies) were identified in women aged 19-87 years. Breast density was heterogeneously or extremely dense (BI-RADS C/D) in 15/18 articles and extremely dense (BI-RADS D) in 3/18 articles. Twelve of 18 articles reported on increased-risk populations. Following 21 440 negative mammographic examinations, 288/320 cancers were detected by MRI. Substantial variation was observed between studies in MRI cancer detection rate, partly associated with prevalent vs incident MRI exams (prevalent: 16.6/1000 exams, 12 studies; incident: 6.8/1000 exams, 7 studies). MRI had high sensitivity for mammographically occult cancer (20 studies with at least 1-year follow-up). In 5/18 articles with sufficient data to estimate relative MRI detection rate, approximately 2 in 3 cancers were detected by MRI (66.3%, 95% CI, 56.3%-75.5%) but not mammography. Positive predictive value was higher for more recent studies. Risk of bias was low in most studies.
CONCLUSION
Supplemental breast MRI following negative mammography in women with dense breasts has breast cancer detection rates of ~16.6/1000 at prevalent and ~6.8/1000 at incident MRI exams, considering both high and average risk settings.
PubMed: 38912622
DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbae019 -
The Indian Journal of Radiology &... Jul 2024Although abundant literature is currently available on the use of deep learning for breast cancer detection in mammography, the quality of such literature is widely... (Review)
Review
Although abundant literature is currently available on the use of deep learning for breast cancer detection in mammography, the quality of such literature is widely variable. To evaluate published literature on breast cancer detection in mammography for reproducibility and to ascertain best practices for model design. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify records that described the use of deep learning to detect lesions or classify images into cancer or noncancer. A modification of Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (mQUADAS-2) tool was developed for this review and was applied to the included studies. Results of reported studies (area under curve [AUC] of receiver operator curve [ROC] curve, sensitivity, specificity) were recorded. A total of 12,123 records were screened, of which 107 fit the inclusion criteria. Training and test datasets, key idea behind model architecture, and results were recorded for these studies. Based on mQUADAS-2 assessment, 103 studies had high risk of bias due to nonrepresentative patient selection. Four studies were of adequate quality, of which three trained their own model, and one used a commercial network. Ensemble models were used in two of these. Common strategies used for model training included patch classifiers, image classification networks (ResNet in 67%), and object detection networks (RetinaNet in 67%). The highest reported AUC was 0.927 ± 0.008 on a screening dataset, while it reached 0.945 (0.919-0.968) on an enriched subset. Higher values of AUC (0.955) and specificity (98.5%) were reached when combined radiologist and Artificial Intelligence readings were used than either of them alone. None of the studies provided explainability beyond localization accuracy. None of the studies have studied interaction between AI and radiologist in a real world setting. While deep learning holds much promise in mammography interpretation, evaluation in a reproducible clinical setting and explainable networks are the need of the hour.
PubMed: 38912238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775737 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2024Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. There are observed disparities in patients with disability as compared to those without... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. There are observed disparities in patients with disability as compared to those without disability, which leads to poor BC screening attendance, thereby worsening disease management. Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate if there are disparities in screening rates in women with disability as compared to those without disability, as well as the different factors that pose barriers to patients with disability for enrolment in BC screening programs. : Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed published articles between 2008 and 2023, which assessed different factors that contributed to poor attendance in BC screening programs held across different countries. Detailed study characteristics were obtained, and methodological quality assessment was performed on the individual studies included in this review. : A total of fifty-three articles were identified as eligible studies based on the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These included 7,252,913 patients diagnosed with BC (913,902 patients with disability/6,339,011 patients without disability). The results revealed there are demographic, clinical, financial, and service-related barriers that contributed to lower screening rates in disabled patients as compared to non-disabled. Patient age is the most common factor, with the highest effect observed for 80 years (vs. 30-44 years) [odds ratio (OR) = 13.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.27-23.47), < 0.0001], followed by race/ethnicity for Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic white) [OR = 9.5 (95%CI = 1.0-91.9), < 0.05]. Additionally, patients with multiple disabilities had the highest rate of dropouts [OR = 27.4 (95%CI = 21.5-33.3)]. Other factors like education, income, marital status, and insurance coverage were essential barriers in screening programs. This study presents a holistic view of all barriers to poor BC screening attendance in disabled patients, thereby exacerbating health inequalities. A standardized approach to overcome the identified barriers and the need for a tailored guideline, especially for disability groups, is inevitable.
PubMed: 38892994
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113283 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Jun 2024Observational cohort studies are used to evaluate the effectiveness of screening mammography in women offered screening. Because screening mammography has no effect on...
OBJECTIVE
Observational cohort studies are used to evaluate the effectiveness of screening mammography in women offered screening. Because screening mammography has no effect on causes of death other than breast cancer, cohort studies should show reductions in the risk of breast cancer death substantially greater than possible reductions in the risk of all cause death. We assessed the risk of breast cancer death and of all-cause (or of non-breast cancer) death associated with screening mammography attendance reported in cohort studies.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
Cohort studies published from 2002 to 2022 on women invited to screening mammography were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus and in review articles. Random effect meta-analyses were performed using relative risks of death between women who attended screening compared to women who did not attend screening.
RESULTS
Eighteen cohort studies were identified, nine that reported relative risks of breast cancer death only, five that reported relative risks of all cause death only, and four that reported relative risks for both breast cancer death and all cause death. The latter four cohort studies reported 12 to 76 times more all-cause deaths than breast cancer deaths. The random-effect summary relative risk for breast cancer mortality in screening attenders vs. nonattenders was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.50-0.60) in 13 cohort studies. The summary relative risk for all-cause mortality was 0.54 (0.50-0.58) in 10 cohort studies. In the four cohort studies that evaluated both outcomes, the summary relative risks were 0.63 (0.43-0.83) for breast cancer mortality and of 0.54 (0.44-0.64) for all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSION
The similar relative reductions in breast- and all-cause (or non-breast cancer) mortality indicates that screening mammography attendance is an indicator of characteristics associated with a lower risk of dying from any cause, including from breast cancer, which observational studies have falsely interpreted as a screening effect.
PubMed: 38878837
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111426 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Jun 2024Artificial intelligence (AI) for reading breast screening mammograms could potentially replace (some) human-reading and improve screening effectiveness. This systematic... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Artificial intelligence (AI) for reading breast screening mammograms could potentially replace (some) human-reading and improve screening effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and quantify the types of AI errors to better understand the consequences of implementing this technology.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for external validation studies of the accuracy of AI algorithms in real-world screening mammograms. Descriptive synthesis was performed on error types and frequency. False negative proportions (FNP) and false positive proportions (FPP) were pooled within AI positivity thresholds using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Seven retrospective studies (447,676 examinations; published 2019-2022) met inclusion criteria. Five studies reported AI error as false negatives or false positives. Pooled FPP decreased incrementally with increasing positivity threshold (71.83% [95% CI 69.67, 73.90] at Transpara 3 to 10.77% [95% CI 8.34, 13.79] at Transpara 9). Pooled FNP increased incrementally from 0.02% [95% CI 0.01, 0.03] (Transpara 3) to 0.12% [95% CI 0.06, 0.26] (Transpara 9), consistent with a trade-off with FPP. Heterogeneity within thresholds reflected algorithm version and completeness of the reference standard. Other forms of AI error were reported rarely (location error and technical error in one study each).
CONCLUSION
AI errors are largely interpreted in the framework of test accuracy. FP and FN errors show expected variability not only by positivity threshold, but also by algorithm version and study quality. Reporting of other forms of AI errors is sparse, despite their potential implications for adoption of the technology. Considering broader types of AI error would add nuance to reporting that can inform inferences about AI's utility.
PubMed: 38853221
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-024-07353-3 -
Systematic Reviews May 2024Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a...
BACKGROUND
Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.
METHODS
We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.
FINDINGS
Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Canada; Patient Preference; Mammography; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Preventive Health Services; Advisory Committees; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38807191
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02539-8 -
Cureus Apr 2024This systematic review aimed to critically assess the effectiveness of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of breast... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to critically assess the effectiveness of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of breast carcinoma within dense breast tissue. An exhaustive search of contemporary literature was undertaken, focusing on the diagnostic accuracy, false positive and negative rates, and clinical implications of the aforementioned imaging modalities. Each modality was assessed in isolation and side by side against the others to draw comparative inferences. While mammography remains a foundational imaging modality, its effectiveness waned within the context of dense breast tissue. Ultrasound demonstrated a strong differentiation prowess, especially among specific demographic cohorts. MRI, despite its exceptional precision and differentiation capabilities, exhibited a tendency for slightly elevated false positive rates. No single modality emerged as singularly superior for all cases. Instead, an integrated approach, combining the strengths of each modality based on individual patient profiles and clinical scenarios, is recommended. This tailored approach ensures optimized detection rates and minimizes diagnostic ambiguities, underscoring the significance of individualized patient care in the field of diagnostic radiology.
PubMed: 38800325
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59054 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... May 2024Out-of-pocket costs are burdensome for breast cancer patients. Cost-reducing interventions, though implemented, have unclear comparative efficacy. This study aimed to...
BACKGROUND
Out-of-pocket costs are burdensome for breast cancer patients. Cost-reducing interventions, though implemented, have unclear comparative efficacy. This study aimed to critically evaluate characteristics of successful versus unsuccessful interventions designed to decrease out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, and Global Health were queried from inception to February 2021. Articles describing a financial intervention targeting costs for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, or treatment and addressing clinical or patient-level financial outcomes were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QualSyst tool. Interventions were organized in accordance with timing of implementation, with narrative description of intervention type, success, and outcomes.
RESULTS
Of the 11,086 articles retrieved, 21 were included in this review. Of these, 14 consisted of interventions during screening, and seven during diagnosis or treatment. Free/subsidized screening mammography was the most common screening intervention; 91% of these programs documented successful outcomes. Patient navigation and gift voucher programs demonstrated mixed success. The most successful intervention implemented during diagnosis/treatment was reducing medication costs. Low-cost programs and direct patient financial assistance were also successful. Limitations included lack of standardization in outcome metrics across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial interventions reducing prices through free screening mammography and decreasing medication costs were most successful. Less successful interventions were not contextually tailored, including gift card incentivization and low-cost treatment modalities. These findings can facilitate implementation of broader, more generalizable programs to reduce costs and improve outcomes during evaluation and management of breast cancer.
PubMed: 38784829
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005683 -
Radiology May 2024Background Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly recognized as a powerful diagnostic tool and tested alternative to contrast-enhanced (CE) breast MRI. Purpose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly recognized as a powerful diagnostic tool and tested alternative to contrast-enhanced (CE) breast MRI. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the diagnostic performance of DWI-based noncontrast MRI protocols (ncDWI) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search in PubMed for articles published from January 1985 to September 2023 was performed. Studies were excluded if they investigated malignant lesions or selected patients and/or lesions only, used DWI as an adjunct technique to CE MRI, or were technical studies. Statistical analysis included pooling of diagnostic accuracy and investigating between-study heterogeneity. Additional subgroup comparisons of ncDWI to CE MRI and standard mammography were performed. Results A total of 28 studies were included, with 4406 lesions (1676 malignant, 2730 benign) in 3787 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ncDWI were 86.5% (95% CI: 81.4, 90.4) and 83.5% (95% CI: 76.9, 88.6), and both measures presented with high between-study heterogeneity ( = 81.6% and 91.6%, respectively; < .001). CE MRI (18 studies) had higher sensitivity than ncDWI (95.1% [95% CI: 92.9, 96.7] vs 88.9% [95% CI: 82.4, 93.1], = .004) at similar specificity (82.2% [95% CI: 75.0, 87.7] vs 82.0% [95% CI: 74.8, 87.5], = .97). Compared with ncDWI, mammography (five studies) showed no evidence of a statistical difference for sensitivity (80.3% [95% CI: 56.3, 93.3] vs 56.7%; [95% CI: 41.9, 70.4], respectively; = .09) or specificity (89.9% [95% CI: 85.5, 93.1] vs 90% [95% CI: 61.3, 98.1], respectively; = .62), but ncDWI had a higher area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (0.93 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.95] vs 0.78 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.81], < .001). Conclusion A direct comparison with CE MRI showed a modestly lower sensitivity at similar specificity for ncDWI, and higher diagnostic performance indexes for ncDWI than standard mammography. Heterogeneity was high, thus these results must be interpreted with caution. © RSNA, 2024 . See also the editorial by Kataoka and Iima in this issue.
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Sensitivity and Specificity; Breast
PubMed: 38771179
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.232508 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Decision Making, Shared; Early Detection of Cancer; Mammography; Patient Participation; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38726892
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013822.pub2