-
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 -
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 -
PloS One 2024To evaluate the effect of olfactory and/or gustatory stimulation interventions on feeding outcomes in preterm infants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To evaluate the effect of olfactory and/or gustatory stimulation interventions on feeding outcomes in preterm infants.
METHODS
We conducted systematic searches across various academic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang Database, and the Wipu Database. These searches aimed to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the impact of olfactory and/or gustatory stimulation on preterm infants. The search period spanned from the inception of the databases until December 2022. Two independent evaluators autonomously reviewed the literature, extracted pertinent data, assessed the quality of the included studies, and conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 7 randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies were included, with a total of 871 participants. Olfactory and gustatory stimulation demonstrated a reduction in the time to full enteral feeds in preterm infants when compared to usual care (MD = -1.60 days; 95% CI = -2.31, -0.89; p<0.0001). No substantial evidence was identified regarding the influence of olfactory and gustatory stimulation on the duration of gastric tube placement, length of hospitalization, incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis, or occurrence of spontaneous bowel perforation in preterm infants.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfactory and gustatory stimulation show potential benefits for preterm infants. However, due to the low to very low level of certainty associated with the available data, our ability to assess the effects is limited. Further trials and studies are essential to enhance our understanding of the mechanisms and effectiveness of olfactory and gustatory stimulation therapies.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Premature; Infant, Newborn; Enteral Nutrition; Smell; Taste; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38713686
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301186 -
Cureus Apr 2024The number one cause of cancer in women worldwide is breast cancer. Over the last three decades, the use of traditional screen-film mammography has increased, but in... (Review)
Review
The number one cause of cancer in women worldwide is breast cancer. Over the last three decades, the use of traditional screen-film mammography has increased, but in recent years, digital mammography and 3D tomosynthesis have become standard procedures for breast cancer screening. With the advancement of technology, the interpretation of images using automated algorithms has become a subject of interest. Initially, computer-aided detection (CAD) was introduced; however, it did not show any long-term benefit in clinical practice. With recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) methods, these technologies are showing promising potential for more accurate and efficient automated breast cancer detection and treatment. While AI promises widespread integration in breast cancer detection and treatment, challenges such as data quality, regulatory, ethical implications, and algorithm validation are crucial. Addressing these is essential for fully realizing AI's potential in enhancing early diagnosis and improving patient outcomes in breast cancer management. In this review article, we aim to provide an overview of the latest developments and applications of AI in breast cancer screening and treatment. While the existing literature primarily consists of retrospective studies, ongoing and future prospective research is poised to offer deeper insights. Artificial intelligence is on the verge of widespread integration into breast cancer detection and treatment, holding the potential to enhance early diagnosis and improve patient outcomes.
PubMed: 38711711
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57619 -
Cancer Medicine Apr 2024Contrast-enhanced spectral imaging (CEM) is a new mammography technique, but its diagnostic value in dense breasts is still inconclusive. We did a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Contrast-enhanced spectral imaging (CEM) is a new mammography technique, but its diagnostic value in dense breasts is still inconclusive. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically until August 6, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies were included to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. STATA V.16.0 and Review Manager V.5.3 were used to meta-analyze the included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies (827 patients, 958 lesions) were included. These 10 studies reported the diagnostic performance of CEM for the workup of suspicious lesions in patients with dense breasts. The summary sensitivity and summary specificity were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.89), respectively. Enhanced lesions, circumscribed margins, and malignancy were statistically correlated. The relative malignancy OR value of the enhanced lesions was 28.11 (95% CI, 6.84-115.48). The relative malignancy OR value of circumscribed margins was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.45).
CONCLUSION
CEM has high diagnostic performance in the workup of suspicious findings in dense breasts, and when lesions are enhanced and have irregular margins, they are often malignant.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Contrast Media; Mammography; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 38659408
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.7128 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2024Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability.
PURPOSE
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com, CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy.
CONCLUSION
Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Comprehension; Health Literacy; Female; Patient Education as Topic; Language; Internet
PubMed: 38603836
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2024.103722