-
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Economic evaluations have become an accepted methodology for decision makers to allocate resources in healthcare systems. Particularly in screening, where short-term...
BACKGROUND
Economic evaluations have become an accepted methodology for decision makers to allocate resources in healthcare systems. Particularly in screening, where short-term costs are associated with long-term benefits, and adverse effects of screening intermingle, cost-effectiveness analyses provide a means to estimate the economic value of screening.
PURPOSE
To introduce the methodology of economic evaluations and to review the existing evidence on cost-effectiveness of MR-based breast cancer screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The various concepts and techniques of economic evaluations critical to the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses are briefly introduced. In a systematic review of the literature, economic evaluations from the years 2000-2022 are reviewed.
RESULTS
Despite a considerable heterogeneity in the reported input variables, outcome categories and methodological approaches, cost-effectiveness analyses report favorably on the economic value of breast MRI screening for different risk groups, including both short- and long-term costs and outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Economic evaluations indicate a strongly favorable economic value of breast MRI screening for women at high risk and for women with dense breast tissue.
PubMed: 38130995
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1292268 -
JCO Global Oncology Sep 2023A portable, cost-effective, easy-to-use, hand-held Intelligent Breast Exam (iBE), which is a wireless, radiation-free device, may be a valuable screening tool in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
A portable, cost-effective, easy-to-use, hand-held Intelligent Breast Exam (iBE), which is a wireless, radiation-free device, may be a valuable screening tool in resource-limited settings. While multiple studies evaluating the use of iBE have been conducted worldwide, there are no cumulative studies evaluating the iBE's performance. Therefore this review aims to determine the clinical utility and applicability of iBE compared with clinical breast examinations, ultrasound, and mammography and discuss its strengths and weaknesses when performing breast-cancer screening.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
RESULTS
The review included 11 studies with a total sample size of 16,052 breasts. The mean age ranged from 42 to 58 years. The sensitivity and specificity of the iBE ranged from 34.3% to 86% and 59% to 94%, respectively. For malignant lesions, iBE demonstrated a moderate to higher diagnostic capacity ranging from 57% to 93% and could identify tumor sizes spanning from 0.5 cm to 9 cm.
CONCLUSION
Our findings underscore the potential clinical utility and applicability of iBE as a prescreening and triaging tool, which may aid in reducing the burden of patients undergoing diagnostic imaging in lower- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, iBE has shown to diagnose cancers as small as 0.5 cm, which can be a boon in early detection and reduce mortality rates. However, the encouraging results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution because of the device's low sensitivity and high false-positive rates.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Breast; Mammography; Ultrasonography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 38085036
DOI: 10.1200/GO.23.00149 -
Insights Into Imaging Dec 2023Calcifications on mammography can be indicative of breast cancer, but the prognostic value of their appearance remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Calcifications on mammography can be indicative of breast cancer, but the prognostic value of their appearance remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between mammographic calcification morphology descriptors (CMDs) and clinicopathological factors.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in Medline via Ovid, Embase.com, and Web of Science was conducted for articles published between 2000 and January 2022 that assessed the relationship between CMDs and clinicopathological factors, excluding case reports and review articles. The risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were evaluated using the QUIPS tool and GRADE. A random-effects model was used to synthesize the extracted data. This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS
Among the 4715 articles reviewed, 29 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 17 different clinicopathological factors in relation to CMDs. Heterogeneity between studies was present and the overall risk of bias was high, primarily due to small, inadequately described study populations. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations between fine linear calcifications and high-grade DCIS [pooled odds ratio (pOR), 4.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.64-9.17], (comedo)necrosis (pOR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.29-9.30), (micro)invasion (pOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03-2.27), and a negative association with estrogen receptor positivity (pOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS
CMDs detected on mammography have prognostic value, but there is a high level of bias and variability between current studies. In order for CMDs to achieve clinical utility, standardization in reporting of CMDs is necessary.
CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT
Mammographic calcification morphology descriptors (CMDs) have prognostic value, but in order for CMDs to achieve clinical utility, standardization in reporting of CMDs is necessary.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42022341599 KEY POINTS: • Mammographic calcifications can be indicative of breast cancer. • The prognostic value of mammographic calcifications is still unclear. • Specific mammographic calcification morphologies are related to lesion aggressiveness. • Variability between studies necessitates standardization in calcification evaluation to achieve clinical utility.
PubMed: 38051355
DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01529-z -
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 -
Cureus Nov 2023Breast cancer is a prevalent global health concern, necessitating accurate diagnostic tools for effective management. Diagnostic imaging plays a pivotal role in breast... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer is a prevalent global health concern, necessitating accurate diagnostic tools for effective management. Diagnostic imaging plays a pivotal role in breast cancer diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and outcome evaluation. Radiomics is an emerging field of study in medical imaging that contains a broad set of computational methods to extract quantitative features from radiographic images. This can be utilized to guide diagnosis, treatment response, and prognosis in clinical settings. A systematic review was performed in concordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Quality was assessed using the radiomics quality score. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiomics analysis, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were included for meta-analysis. The area under the curve analysis was recorded. An extensive statistical analysis was performed following the Cochrane guidelines. Statistical significance was determined if p-values were less than 0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.4.1. A total of 31 manuscripts involving 8,773 patients were included, with 17 contributing to the meta-analysis. The cohort comprised 56.2% malignant breast cancers and 43.8% benign breast lesions. MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.92) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86) in differentiating between benign and malignant breast cancers. Mammography-based radiomic features predicted breast cancer subtype with a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.82) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.84). Ultrasound-based analysis yielded a sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.88). Only one study reported the results of radiomic evaluation from CT, which had a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99) and a specificity of 0.56 (95% CI: 0.45-0.67). Across different imaging modalities, radiomics exhibited robust diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. The results underscore the potential of radiomic assessment as a minimally invasive alternative or adjunctive diagnostic tool for breast cancer. This is pioneering data that reports on a novel diagnostic approach that is understudied and underreported. However, due to study limitations, the complexity of this technology, and the need for future development, biopsy still remains the current gold standard method of determining breast cancer type.
PubMed: 38024014
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49015 -
Gland Surgery Oct 2023Cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) is a new breast imaging technique, however, CBBCT is not yet widely used, and its future application will depend on its...
Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography and head-to-head comparison of digital mammography, magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam breast computed tomography for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) is a new breast imaging technique, however, CBBCT is not yet widely used, and its future application will depend on its diagnostic potential and application value. Therefore, it is of great clinical significance to systematically review and analyze the diagnostic accuracy of CBBCT for breast cancer detection in existing studies and compare it with other traditional imaging methods for the diagnosis of breast lesions.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese databases until August 2022 for relevant papers. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CBBCT in women with suspected breast cancer were included. Each study's quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) instrument.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with a total of 1,792 patients were included in the analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of CBBCT in diagnosing breast cancer were 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.97] and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for CBBCT was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94). In a head-to-head comparison of CBBCT and digital mammography (DM), eight trials with 992 patients were included in the study, and the AUCs for CBBCT and DM were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.83), respectively. In a head-to-head comparison of CBBCT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), four trials with 203 patients were included in the analysis; the AUC for CBBCT and MRI were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis of CBBCT test accuracy indicated encouraging diagnostic performance. In the summary of head-to-head comparative studies, there is a tendency for CBBCT to have greater diagnostic accuracy than DM, although its diagnostic performance is marginally inferior to that of MRI. However, the meta-analysis results were derived from studies with limited sample sizes. There is a need for more extensive research in this setting.
PubMed: 38021193
DOI: 10.21037/gs-23-153 -
Journal of the American College of... Feb 2024To summarize the literature regarding the performance of mammography-image based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, with and without additional clinical data, for...
PURPOSE
To summarize the literature regarding the performance of mammography-image based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, with and without additional clinical data, for future breast cancer risk prediction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed using six databases (medRixiv, bioRxiv, Embase, Engineer Village, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) from 2012 through September 30, 2022. Studies were included if they used real-world screening mammography examinations to validate AI algorithms for future risk prediction based on images alone or in combination with clinical risk factors. The quality of studies was assessed, and predictive accuracy was recorded as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS
Sixteen studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 14 studies provided AUC values. The median AUC performance of AI image-only models was 0.72 (range 0.62-0.90) compared with 0.61 for breast density or clinical risk factor-based tools (range 0.54-0.69). Of the seven studies that compared AI image-only performance directly to combined image + clinical risk factor performance, six demonstrated no significant improvement, and one study demonstrated increased improvement.
CONCLUSIONS
Early efforts for predicting future breast cancer risk based on mammography images alone demonstrate comparable or better accuracy to traditional risk tools with little or no improvement when adding clinical risk factor data. Transitioning from clinical risk factor-based to AI image-based risk models may lead to more accurate, personalized risk-based screening approaches.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Artificial Intelligence; Early Detection of Cancer; Breast; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37949155
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.10.018 -
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health Jun 2024Ethnic minority women experience disparities in mammography screening utilisation and breast cancer outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Ethnic minority women experience disparities in mammography screening utilisation and breast cancer outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised multidomain and multilevel factors that intersect to influence the utilisation of mammography among ethnic minorities. A literature search was conducted in five databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from inception to May 2022. Guided by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparity research framework, the retrieved data were synthesised using narrative summaries and meta-analyses. Among the 27 studies, most (n = 24) reported individual, interpersonal, and community factors in the health care system domain. In the sociocultural domain, interpersonal and societal (n = 8) factors, such as modesty and karma beliefs, were less frequently identified than individual (n = 20) factors in relation to acculturation. Only individual-level factors were reported for the biological and physical/built environment (e.g., rural residence) domains. In the behavioural domain, cancer screening behaviours had a high combined prediction ability (odds ratio = 18.23; I = 23%), whereas interpersonal (e.g., family obligations) and community (e.g., neighbourhood violence) factors discouraged mammography screening. Special focus should be given to ethnic minority women, especially those living in rural areas, those with considerable family obligations, and those who have suffered from violence and other life pressures, to increase their access to mammography services. Multidomain and multilevel efforts, culturally appropriate strategies, and equity-advancing policies such as geographic access and insurance coverage would help to mitigate the ethnic disparities in mammography screening.
Topics: Humans; Mammography; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Ethnic and Racial Minorities; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Socioeconomic Factors; Healthcare Disparities
PubMed: 37946094
DOI: 10.1007/s10903-023-01564-4 -
Breast Care (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Fibroadenomas are solid, mobile, and non-tender benign breast lumps, with highest prevalence amongst young women aged between 15 and 35. Symptoms can include discomfort,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Fibroadenomas are solid, mobile, and non-tender benign breast lumps, with highest prevalence amongst young women aged between 15 and 35. Symptoms can include discomfort, and they can become problematic, particularly when they enlarge, resulting in many referrals for biopsies, with fibroadenomas accounting for 30-75% of the cases. Diagnosis is based on triple assessment that involves a clinical examination, ultrasound imaging, and mammography, as well as core needle biopsies. Current management includes observation for 6-12 months, with the indication of definitive surgery, in cases that are older than 35 years or with fibroadenoma persistence. Serious adverse effects of surgery might include nipple areolar distortion, scarring, and damage to the breast tissue, as well as the risks associated with surgery and anesthesia, making it a non-feasible option.
METHODS
A literature search was performed on the databases Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, and Ovid for English language papers published between January 1, 2000, and March 17, 2021. A structured protocol was employed to devise a comprehensive search strategy with keywords and Boolean operators defined by the research question. The keywords used for the search were "HIFU", "High Intensity Focused Ultrasound," "Fibroadenoma," "Breast," "Lesion." This review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
Recently, a thermal ablative technique, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), was found to be a safe, noninvasive, and technically successful alternative, having displayed promising outcomes in reducing the volume of fibroadenomas, pain experienced by patients, and the length of hospitalization. Quality of life improvement was also evidenced, exhibited by the disappearance of symptoms, and enhanced physical activity post-intervention, in addition to patients' satisfaction with the cosmetic results and future recommendation of the procedure to other patients.
CONCLUSION
Overall, HIFU is a well-tolerated treatment associated, with low risk of complications, that can potentially include erythema, skin discoloration, and bruising with the majority of these self-resolving shortly after the procedure.
PubMed: 37900548
DOI: 10.1159/000524738 -
Cureus Sep 2023Myofibroblastoma (MFB) is a rare but benign mesenchymal tumor most commonly appearing within breast tissue. Most cases of MFB occur in postmenopausal women and are...
Myofibroblastoma (MFB) is a rare but benign mesenchymal tumor most commonly appearing within breast tissue. Most cases of MFB occur in postmenopausal women and are treated by surgical excision. The diagnosis of MFB is made through immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis, with the most common biomarkers being CD34+, desmin+, smooth muscle actin+, and vimentin+. In this article, we describe a case of an MFB in a premenopausal female with variance from classic IHC findings. We also performed a systemic review of the MFB of the breast. The systemic review compiles the most common IHC findings of MFB, patient demographics, treatment methods, lesion size, and the presence or absence of pain associated with the lesion. As MFB can share many features with other breast lesions, including potentially malignant ones, this article sought to underline the most common IHC findings and characteristics of MFB to aid in the proper diagnosis of MFB.
PubMed: 37900540
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46125