-
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 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Mar 2023The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the incidence of overdiagnosis due to screening mammography for breast cancer among women aged... (Review)
Review
The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the incidence of overdiagnosis due to screening mammography for breast cancer among women aged 40 years and older. A PRISMA systematic search appraisal and meta-analysis were conducted. A systematic literature search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted without regard to the region or time period. Generic, methodological, and statistical data were extracted from the eligible studies. A meta-analysis was completed by utilizing comprehensive meta-analysis software. The effect size estimates were calculated using the fail-safe N test. The funnel plot and the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation tests were employed to find any potential bias among the included articles. The strength of the association between two variables was assessed using Kendall's tau. Heterogeneity was measured using the I-squared (I2) test. The literature search in the five databases yielded a total of 4214 studies. Of those, 30 articles were included in the final analysis, with sample sizes ranging from 451 to 1,429,890 women. The vast majority of the articles were retrospective cohort designs (24 articles). The age of the recruited women ranged between 40 and 89 years old. The incidence of overdiagnosis due to screening mammography for breast cancer among women aged 40 years and older was 12.6%. There was high heterogeneity among the study articles (I2 = 99.993), and the pooled event rate was 0.126 (95% CI: 15 0.101-0.156). Despite the random-effects meta-analysis showing a high degree of heterogeneity among the articles, the screening tests have to allow for a certain degree of overdiagnosis (12.6%) due to screening mammography for breast cancer among women aged 40 years and older. Furthermore, efforts should be directed toward controlling and minimizing the harmful consequences associated with breast cancer screening.
PubMed: 36983705
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13030523 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Apr 2023To examine reader characteristics associated with diagnostic efficacy in the interpretation of screening mammograms. A systematic search of the literature was conducted... (Review)
Review
To examine reader characteristics associated with diagnostic efficacy in the interpretation of screening mammograms. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using databases such as Cochrane, Scopus, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Search terms were combined with "AND" or "OR" and included: "Radiologist's characteristics AND performance"; "radiologist experience AND screening mammography"; "annual volume read AND diagnostic efficacy"; "screening mammography performance OR diagnostic efficacy". Studies were included if they assessed reader performance in screening mammography interpretation, breast readers, used a reference standard to assess the performance, and were published in the English language. Twenty-eight studies were reviewed. Increasing reader's age was associated with lower false positive rates. No association was found between gender and performance. Half of the studies showed no association between years of reading mammograms and performance. Most studies showed that high reading volume was more likely to be associated with increased sensitivity, cancer detection rates (CDR), lower recall rate, and lower false positive rates. Inconsistent associations were found between fellowship training in breast imaging and reader performance. Specialization in breast imaging was associated with better CDR, sensitivity, and specificity. Limited studies were available to establish the association between performance and factors such as time spent in breast imaging (n = 2), screening focus (n = 1), formal rotation in mammography (n = 1), owner of practice (n = 1), and practice type (n = 1). No individual characteristics is associated with versatility in diagnostic efficacy, albeit reading volume and specialization in breast imaging appear to be associated with with increased sensitivity and CDR without significantly affecting other performance metrics.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mammography; Breast Neoplasms; Clinical Competence; Early Detection of Cancer; Breast; Mass Screening; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 36792458
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.01.009 -
BMJ Open Feb 2023To systematically identify interventions that increase the use of mammography screening in women living in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
OBJECTIVE
To systematically identify interventions that increase the use of mammography screening in women living in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and African regional databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies conducted in LMICs, published between 1 January 1990 and 30 June 2021, in the English language. Studies whose population included asymptomatic women eligible for mammography screening. Studies with a reported outcome of using mammography by either self-report or medical records. No restrictions were set on the study design.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Screening, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was conducted.
RESULTS
Five studies met the inclusion criteria consisting of two randomised controlled trials, one quasi-experiment and two cross-sectional studies. All included studies employed client-oriented intervention strategies including one-on-one education, group education, mass and small media, reducing client out-of-pocket costs, reducing structural barriers, client reminders and engagement of community health workers (CHWs). Most studies used multicomponent interventions, resulting in increases in the rate of use of mammography than those that employed a single strategy.
CONCLUSION
Mass and small media, group education, reduction of economic and structural barriers, client reminders and engagement of CHWs can increase use of mammography among women in LMICs. Promoting the adoption of these interventions should be considered, especially the multicomponent interventions, which were significantly effective relative to a single strategy in increasing use of mammography.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021269556.
Topics: Female; Humans; Developing Countries; Cross-Sectional Studies; Mammography; Self Report
PubMed: 36750281
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066928 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Apr 2023Mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (MSFN) is one of the most feared complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IIBR). Traditionally, mastectomy skin-flap... (Review)
Review
Mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (MSFN) is one of the most feared complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IIBR). Traditionally, mastectomy skin-flap viability was based only on surgeons' clinical experience. Even though numerous studies have already addressed the patients' risk factors for MSFN, few works have focused on assessing quality of breast envelope. This review investigates mastectomy's flap viability-assessment methods, both preoperative (PMFA) and intraoperative (IMFA), to predict MSFN and its sequalae. Between June and November 2022, we conducted a systematic review of Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane electronic databases. Only English studies regarding PMFA and IMFA applied to IIBR were selected. The use of digital mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and a combination of several methods before surgery was shown to be advantageous by several authors. Indocyanine performed better than other IMFA, however both thermal imaging and spectroscopy demonstrated novel and promising results. Anyway, the best prediction comes when preoperative and intraoperative values are combined. Particularly in prepectoral reconstruction, when mastectomy flaps are essential to determine a successful breast reconstruction, surgeons' clinical judgment is insufficient in assessing the risk of MSFN. Preoperative and intraoperative assessment techniques play an emerging key role in MSFN prediction. However, although there are several approaches to back up the surgeon's processing choice, there is still a dearth of pertinent literature on the subject, and more research is required.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Neoplasms; Breast; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Skin Diseases; Necrosis; Retrospective Studies; Breast Implants
PubMed: 36725477
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.12.021 -
Radiology Mar 2023Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined. Purpose To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402). Results Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assessment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities. Conclusion The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer. © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Breast Density; Early Detection of Cancer; Breast; Mass Screening; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36719288
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.221785 -
Journal of Ultrasound Jun 2023The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.
METHODS
Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of MMG and US. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference.
RESULTS
Analysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of MMG and US in detecting breast cancer were as follows: pooled sensitivity per-patient were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.91) respectively, The pooled specificities for detection of breast cancer using MMG, and US were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.91) respectively. AUC of MMG, and US were 0.8933 and 0.8310 respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity per-lesion was 76% (95% CI 0.62-0.86) and 82% (95% CI 0.66-0.91) for MMG and 94% (95% CI 0.87-0.97) and 84% (95% CI 0.74-0.91) for US.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis found that, US and MMG has similar diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer on per-patient basis after corrected threshold effect. However, on a per-lesion basis US was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy than MMG.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Ultrasonography, Mammary; Ultrasonography; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 36696046
DOI: 10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3 -
A systematic review of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening and diagnosis.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Feb 2023Breast cancer care has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aims to describe the observed pandemic-related changes in clinical and health... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer care has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aims to describe the observed pandemic-related changes in clinical and health services outcomes for breast screening and diagnosis.
METHODS
Seven databases (January 2020-March 2021) were searched to identify studies of breast cancer screening or diagnosis that reported observed outcomes before and related to the pandemic. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach.
RESULTS
Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review; all compared periods before and after (or fluctuations during) the pandemic. None were assessed as being at low risk of bias. A reduction in screening volumes during the pandemic was found with over half of studies reporting reductions of ≥49%. A majority (66%) of studies reported reductions of ≥25% in the number of breast cancer diagnoses, and there was a higher proportion of symptomatic than screen-detected cancers. The distribution of cancer stage at diagnosis during the pandemic showed lower proportions of early-stage (stage 0-1/I-II, or Tis and T1) and higher proportions of relatively more advanced cases than that in the pre-pandemic period, however population rates were generally not reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of substantial reductions in screening volume and number of diagnosed breast cancers, and higher proportions of advanced stage cancer at diagnosis were found during the pandemic. However, these findings reflect short term outcomes, and higher-quality research examining the long-term impact of the pandemic is needed.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; COVID-19; Pandemics; Early Detection of Cancer; Neoplasm Staging; COVID-19 Testing
PubMed: 36646004
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.01.001 -
Clinical & Translational Oncology :... Jun 2023Mammography Density (MD) is a potential risk marker that is influenced by genetic polymorphisms and can subsequently modulate the risk of breast cancer. This qualitative... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mammography Density (MD) is a potential risk marker that is influenced by genetic polymorphisms and can subsequently modulate the risk of breast cancer. This qualitative systematic review summarizes the genes and biological pathways involved in breast density and discusses the potential clinical implications in view of the genetic risk profile for breast density.
METHODS
The terms related to "Common genetic variations" and "Breast density" were searched in Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Gene pathways analysis and assessment of protein interactions were also performed.
RESULTS
Eighty-six studies including 111 genes, reported a significant association between mammographic density in different populations. ESR1, IGF1, IGFBP3, and ZNF365 were the most prevalent genes. Moreover, estrogen metabolism, signal transduction, and prolactin signaling pathways were significantly related to the associated genes. Mammography density was an associated phenotype, and eight out of 111 genes, including COMT, CYP19A1, CYP1B1, ESR1, IGF1, IGFBP1, IGFBP3, and LSP1, were modifiers of this trait.
CONCLUSION
Genes involved in developmental processes and the evolution of secondary sexual traits play an important role in determining mammographic density. Due to the effect of breast tissue density on the risk of breast cancer, these genes may also be associated with breast cancer risk.
Topics: Humans; Breast Density; Mammography; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Risk Factors; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36639603
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-022-03071-8