-
Women's Health Issues : Official... 2015A review was conducted to summarize the current evidence and gaps in the literature on geographic access to mammography and its relationship to breast cancer-related... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
A review was conducted to summarize the current evidence and gaps in the literature on geographic access to mammography and its relationship to breast cancer-related outcomes.
METHODS
Ovid, Medline, and PubMed were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and April 1, 2013, using Medical Subject Headings and key terms representing geographic accessibility and breast cancer-related outcomes. Owing to a paucity of breast cancer treatment and mortality outcomes meeting the criteria (N = 6), outcomes were restricted to breast cancer screening and stage at diagnosis. Studies included one or more of the following types of geographic accessibility measures: capacity, density, distance, and travel time. Study findings were grouped by outcome and type of geographic measure.
RESULTS
Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen articles included stage at diagnosis as an outcome, five included mammography use, and two included both. Geographic measures of mammography accessibility varied widely across studies. Findings also varied, but most articles found either increased geographic access to mammography associated with increased use and decreased late-stage at diagnosis or no association.
CONCLUSION
The gaps and methodologic heterogeneity in the literature to date limit definitive conclusions about an underlying association between geographic mammography access and breast cancer-related outcomes. Future studies should focus on the development and application of more precise and consistent measures of geographic access to mammography.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Geographic Mapping; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Residence Characteristics; Time Factors
PubMed: 26219677
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2015.05.010 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022It is well established that access to preventative care, such as breast or cervical cancer screening, can reduce morbidity and mortality. Certain groups may be missed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
It is well established that access to preventative care, such as breast or cervical cancer screening, can reduce morbidity and mortality. Certain groups may be missed out of these healthcare services, such as women with disabilities, as they face many access barriers due to underlying inequalities and negative attitudes. However, the data have not been reviewed on whether women with disabilities face inequalities in the uptake of these services. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in women with and without disabilities. A search was conducted in July 2021 across four databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Global Health, and CINAHL. Quantitative studies comparing the uptake of breast or cervical cancer screening between women with and without disabilities were eligible. Twenty-nine studies were included, all from high-income settings. One third of the 29 studies (34.5%, 10) were deemed to have a high risk of bias, and the remainder a low risk of bias. The pooled estimates showed that women with disabilities have 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72-0.84) lower odds of attending breast cancer screening and have 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.88) lower odds of attending cervical cancer screening, compared to women without disabilities. In conclusion, women with disabilities face disparities in receipt of preventative cancer care. There is consequently an urgent need to evaluate and improve the inclusivity of cancer screening programs and thereby prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Disabled Persons; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35954824
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159465 -
Australian and New Zealand Journal of... Oct 2009A systematic review assessed the relative safety and effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography. This study utilised the evidence from... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review assessed the relative safety and effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography. This study utilised the evidence from the review to examine the economic value of digital compared with film-screen mammography in Australia.
METHODS
A cost-comparison analysis between the two technologies was conducted for the overall population for the purposes of breast cancer screening and diagnosis. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for the screening subgroups where digital mammography was considered to be more accurate than film-screen mammography.
RESULTS
Digital mammography in a screening setting is $11 more per examination than film-screen mammography, and $36 or $33 more per examination in a diagnostic setting when either digital radiography or computed radiography is used. In both the screening and diagnostic settings, the throughput of the mammography system had the most significant impact on decreasing the incremental cost/examination/year of digital mammography.
CONCLUSION
Digital mammography is more expensive than film-screen mammography. Whether digital mammography represents good value for money depends on the eventual life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained from the early cancer diagnosis.
IMPLICATIONS
The evidence generated from this study has informed the allocation of public resources for the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in Australia.
Topics: Australia; Breast Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Resource Allocation
PubMed: 19811478
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00424.x -
Radiology Jan 2022Background Advances in computer processing and improvements in data availability have led to the development of machine learning (ML) techniques for mammographic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Advances in computer processing and improvements in data availability have led to the development of machine learning (ML) techniques for mammographic imaging. Purpose To evaluate the reported performance of stand-alone ML applications for screening mammography workflow. Materials and Methods Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science literature databases were searched for relevant studies published from January 2012 to September 2020. The study was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (protocol no. CRD42019156016). Stand-alone technology was defined as a ML algorithm that can be used independently of a human reader. Studies were quality assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, and reporting was evaluated using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging. A primary meta-analysis included the top-performing algorithm and corresponding reader performance from which pooled summary estimates for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated using a bivariate model. Results Fourteen articles were included, which detailed 15 studies for stand-alone detection ( = 8) and triage ( = 7). Triage studies reported that 17%-91% of normal mammograms identified could be read by adapted screening, while "missing" an estimated 0%-7% of cancers. In total, an estimated 185 252 cases from three countries with more than 39 readers were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC was 75.4% (95% CI: 65.6, 83.2; = .11), 90.6% (95% CI: 82.9, 95.0; = .40), and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), respectively, for algorithms, and 73.0% (95% CI: 60.7, 82.6), 88.6% (95% CI: 72.4, 95.8), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.97), respectively, for readers. Conclusion Machine learning (ML) algorithms that demonstrate a stand-alone application in mammographic screening workflows achieve or even exceed human reader detection performance and improve efficiency. However, this evidence is from a small number of retrospective studies. Therefore, further rigorous independent external prospective testing of ML algorithms to assess performance at preassigned thresholds is required to support these claims. ©RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Whitman and Moseley in this issue.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Machine Learning; Mammography; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Sensitivity and Specificity; Workflow
PubMed: 34665034
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021210391 -
European Radiology Dec 2011To determine the diagnostic accuracy of surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women previously treated for primary breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review of surveillance mammography compared with ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specialist-led clinical examination or unstructured primary care follow-up, using histopathological assessment for test positives and follow-up for test negatives as the reference standard.
RESULTS
Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Variations in study comparisons precluded meta-analysis. For routine ipsilateral breast tumour detection, surveillance mammography sensitivity ranged from 64-67% and specificity ranged from 85-97%. For MRI, sensitivity ranged from 86-100% and specificity was 93%. For non-routine ipsilateral breast tumour detection, sensitivity and specificity for surveillance mammography ranged from 50-83% and 57-75% and for MRI 93-100% and 88-96%. For routine metachronous contralateral breast cancer detection, one study reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 50% for both surveillance mammography and MRI.
CONCLUSION
Although mammography is associated with high sensitivity and specificity, MRI is the most accurate test for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women previously treated for primary breast cancer. Results should be interpreted with caution because of the limited evidence base. Key Points • Surveillance mammography is associated with high sensitivity and specificity • Findings suggest that MRI is the most accurate test for detecting further breast cancer • Robust conclusions cannot be made due to the limited evidence base • Further research comparing surveillance mammography and other diagnostic tests is required.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mammography; Mass Screening; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Palpation; Population Surveillance; Primary Health Care; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 21833567
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2226-z -
Medicine Apr 2019Previous clinical studies have reported that full field digital mammography (FFDM) can be used for diagnosis on breast cancer (BC) with promising outcome results....
BACKGROUND
Previous clinical studies have reported that full field digital mammography (FFDM) can be used for diagnosis on breast cancer (BC) with promising outcome results. However, no study systematically investigates its diagnostic impact on female patients with BC. Thus, this systematic review will assess the accurate of FFDM diagnosis on BC.
METHODS
In this study, we will perform a comprehensive search strategy in the databases as follows: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, PSYCINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, and Wanfang Data from inception to February 28, 2019. All case-controlled studies exploring the impacts of FFDM diagnosis for patients BC will be fully considered for inclusion in this study. Two authors will independently scan the title and abstracts for relevance, and assess full texts for inclusion. They will also independently extract data and will assess methodological qualify for each included study by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RevMan V.5.3 software (London, UK) and Stata V.12.0 software (Texas, USA) will be used to pool the data and to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of FFDM will be used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM for the diagnosis of patients with BC.
CONCLUSION
Its findings will provide latest evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM in female patients with BC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019125338.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammography; Predictive Value of Tests; Research Design
PubMed: 31008938
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015175 -
Journal of Cancer 2023To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced... (Review)
Review
To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI). Like breast MRI, CEM enables tumour visualization by contrast accumulation. CEM seems to be a viable substitute for breast MRI. This systematic search assessed the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques in women with suspicious breast lesions on prior imaging or physical examination, who have undergone both breast MRI and CEM. CEM had to be performed on a commercially available system. The MRI sequence parameters had to be described sufficiently to ensure that standard breast MRI sequence protocols were used. Pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were estimated using bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for CEM and breast MRI were also constructed. Six studies (607 patients with 775 lesions) met the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 96% for CEM and 97% for breast MRI. Pooled specificity was 77% for both modalities. DOR was 79.5 for CEM and 122.9 for breast MRI. Between-study heterogeneity expressed as the -index was substantial with values over 80%. Pooled sensitivity was high for both CEM and breast MRI, with moderate specificity. The pooled DOR estimates, however, indicate higher overall diagnostic performance of breast MRI compared to CEM. Nonetheless, current scientific evidence is too limited to prematurely discard CEM as an alternative for breast MRI.
PubMed: 36605487
DOI: 10.7150/jca.79747 -
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 -
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 -
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic... 2020Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) is an imaging technique which is increasing focuses on imaging the chest instead of imaging the whole body. The aim of this study... (Review)
Review
Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) is an imaging technique which is increasing focuses on imaging the chest instead of imaging the whole body. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and coste-ffectiveness of PEM technology, as compared with PET, as a diagnostic method used for breast cancer patients. The present study was a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which was conducted via a systematic review of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the methods based on domestic evidence. To evaluate the efficacy of the PEM diagnostic method, as compared with PET, we used efficacy indices, including Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, PPV, and NPV. The required data were collected through a meta-analysis of studies published in electronic databases from 1990 to 2016. In addition, direct costs in both methods were estimated and finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the results of the study. Also, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effects of parameters' uncertainty in the model. In this study, we used STATA software to integrate the results of studies with similar parameters. A total of 722 cases (N) were obtained from the five final studies. The results of the meta-analysis performed on the collected data showed that the two methods were identical in terms of the Specificity and PPV parameters. However, as to Sensitivity, NPV, and Accuracy parameters, the PEM method was superior to the PET for diagnosis of primary breast cancer. The total cost of using PEM and PET was $1737385.7 and $1940903.5, respectively, and the cost of a one-time scan (cost per unit) using PEM and PET devices was $86.82 and $157.63, respectively. As compared with the PET method, the use of the PEM diagnostic method for diagnosis of breast cancer was cost-effective in terms of all the five studied parameters (it was definitely cost-effective for four parameters and was also considered as cost-effective for another index, since ICER was below the threshold). The results showed that the use of PEM technology for the diagnosis of primary breast cancer is more cost-effective than PET technology; thus, due to the wide range of PET technology in different fields, it is recommended that this method should be used in other areas of priority.
PubMed: 33315994
DOI: 10.34171/mjiri.34.100