-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Dec 2022Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I statistic, stratified and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.
CONCLUSIONS
Mammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Breast; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36183671
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.007 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Aug 2022Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little information is known about how many countries have issued breast cancer screening guidelines and the differences among existing guidelines. We systematically reviewed current guidelines and summarized corresponding recommendations, to provide references for good clinical practice in different countries.
METHODS
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27th, 2021 were conducted and supplemented by reviewing the guideline development organizations. The quality of screening guidelines was assessed from six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument by two appraisers. The basic information and recommendations of the issued guidelines were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS
A total of 23 guidelines issued between 2010 and 2021 in 11 countries or regions were identified for further review. The content and quality varied across the guidelines. The average AGREE Ⅱ scores of the guidelines ranged from 33.3% to 87.5%. The highest domain score was "clarity of presentation" while the domain with the lowest score was "applicability". For average-risk women, most of the guidelines recommended mammographic screening for those aged 40-74 years, specifically, those aged 50-69 years were regarded as the optimal age group for screening. Nine of 23 guidelines recommended against an upper age limit for breast cancer screening. Mammography (MAM) was recommended as the primary screening modality for average-risk women by all included guidelines. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic screening. Risk factors of breast cancer identified in the guidelines mainly fell within five categories which could be broadly summarized as the personal history of pre-cancerous lesions and/or breast cancer; the family history of breast cancer; the known genetic predisposition of breast cancer; the history of mantle or chest radiation therapy; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk, there was a consensus among most guidelines that annual MAM or annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be given, and the screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of 23 included international guidelines were issued by developed countries which contained roughly the same but not identical recommendations on breast cancer screening age, methods, and intervals. Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial mammographic screening between 40 and 74 years for average-risk populations and annual MAM or annual MRI starting from a younger age for high-risk populations. Current guidelines varied in quality and increased efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of guidance documents. Due to lacking clinical practice guidelines tailored to different economic levels, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should apply and implement the evidence-based guidelines with higher AGREE Ⅱ scores considering local adaption.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 35636342
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 -
Evidence Report/technology Assessment Mar 2011To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve these outcomes for individuals with low health literacy. Disparities in health outcomes and effectiveness of interventions among different sociodemographic groups were also examined.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and the Educational Resources Information Center. For health literacy, we searched using a variety of terms, limited to English and studies published from 2003 to May 25, 2010. For numeracy, we searched from 1966 to May 25, 2010.
REVIEW METHODS
We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We evaluated whether newer literature was available for answering key questions, so we broadened our definition of health literacy to include numeracy and oral (spoken) health literacy. We excluded intervention studies that did not measure health literacy directly and updated our approach to evaluate individual study risk of bias and to grade strength of evidence.
RESULTS
We included good- and fair-quality studies: 81 studies addressing health outcomes (reported in 95 articles including 86 measuring health literacy and 16 measuring numeracy, of which 7 measure both) and 42 studies (reported in 45 articles) addressing interventions. Differences in health literacy level were consistently associated with increased hospitalizations, greater emergency care use, lower use of mammography, lower receipt of influenza vaccine, poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately, poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages, and, among seniors, poorer overall health status and higher mortality. Health literacy level potentially mediates disparities between blacks and whites. The strength of evidence of numeracy studies was insufficient to low, limiting conclusions about the influence of numeracy on health care service use or health outcomes. Two studies suggested numeracy may mediate the effect of disparities on health outcomes. We found no evidence concerning oral health literacy and outcomes. Among intervention studies (27 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cluster RCTs, and 13 quasi-experimental designs), the strength of evidence for specific design features was low or insufficient. However, several specific features seemed to improve comprehension in one or a few studies. The strength of evidence was moderate for the effect of mixed interventions on health care service use; the effect of intensive self-management inventions on behavior; and the effect of disease-management interventions on disease prevalence/severity. The effects of other mixed interventions on other health outcomes, including knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and quality of life, and costs were mixed; thus, the strength of evidence was insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
The field of health literacy has advanced since the 2004 report. Future research priorities include justifying appropriate cutoffs for health literacy levels prior to conducting studies; developing tools that measure additional related skills, particularly oral (spoken) health literacy; and examining mediators and moderators of the effect of health literacy. Priorities in advancing the design features of interventions include testing novel approaches to increase motivation, techniques for delivering information orally or numerically, "work around" interventions such as patient advocates; determining the effective components of already-tested interventions; determining the cost-effectiveness of programs; and determining the effect of policy and practice interventions.
Topics: Cause of Death; Emergency Medical Services; Health Literacy; Health Status; Hospitalization; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Mammography; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Compliance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23126607
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Apr 2017Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare... (Review)
Review
Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare system, which affects the diagnosis of the tumor. Thus, the indicators observed in developed countries cannot be directly compared with those observed in developing countries because the healthcare infrastructures in developing countries are deficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate breast cancer screening strategies and indicators in developing countries. A systematic review and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Timing, and Setting methodology were performed to identify possible indicators of presentation at diagnosis and the methodologies used in developing countries. We searched PubMed for the terms "Breast Cancer" or "Breast Cancer Screening" and "Developing Country" or "Developing Countries". In all, 1,149 articles were identified. Of these articles, 45 full articles were selected, which allowed us to identify indicators related to epidemiology, diagnostic intervention (diagnostic strategy, diagnostic infrastructure, percentage of women undergoing mammography), quality of intervention (presentation of symptoms at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, early stage disease), comparisons (trend curves, subpopulations at risk) and survival among different countries. The identification of these indicators will improve the reporting of methodologies used in developing countries and will allow us to evaluate improvements in public health related to breast cancer.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Developing Countries; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Survival Rate
PubMed: 28492725
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2017(04)09 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Cause of Death; Diagnostic Errors; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Pamphlets; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23737396
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5 -
Radiology Jun 2023Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.
Topics: Female; Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Mammography; Breast; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37219445
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.222639 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2016In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years.
PURPOSE
To review studies of the effectiveness of breast cancer screening in average-risk women.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to 4 June 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language randomized, controlled trials and observational studies of screening with mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography that reported breast cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, or advanced breast cancer outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION
Investigators extracted and confirmed data and dual rated study quality; discrepancies were resolved through consensus.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Fair-quality evidence from a meta-analysis of mammography trials indicated relative risks (RRs) for breast cancer mortality of 0.92 for women aged 39 to 49 years (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02) (9 trials; 3 deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years); 0.86 for those aged 50 to 59 years (CI, 0.68 to 0.97) (7 trials; 8 deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years); 0.67 for those aged 60 to 69 years (CI, 0.54 to 0.83) (5 trials; 21 deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years); and 0.80 for those aged 70 to 74 years (CI, 0.51 to 1.28) (3 trials; 13 deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years). Risk reduction was 25% to 31% for women aged 50 to 69 years in observational studies of mammography screening. All-cause mortality was not reduced with screening. Advanced breast cancer was reduced for women aged 50 years or older (RR, 0.62 [CI, 0.46 to 0.83]) (3 trials) but not those aged 39 to 49 years (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.74 to 1.37]) (4 trials); less evidence supported this outcome.
LIMITATIONS
Most trials used imaging technologies and treatments that are now outdated, and definitions of advanced breast cancer were heterogeneous. Studies of effectiveness based on risk factors, intervals, or other modalities were unavailable or methodologically limited.
CONCLUSION
Breast cancer mortality is generally reduced with mammography screening, although estimates are not statistically significant at all ages and the magnitudes of effect are small. Advanced cancer is reduced with screening for women aged 50 years or older.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 26756588
DOI: 10.7326/M15-0969 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International May 2018Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. The German S3 guideline of 2012 has now been updated to take account of advances in the early detection, diagnostic...
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. The German S3 guideline of 2012 has now been updated to take account of advances in the early detection, diagnostic evaluation, treatment, and follow-up care of this disease.
METHODS
The updating process was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines and on reviews of the scientific evidence. A systematic search in multiple literature databases was carried out, and the full texts of the selected articles were evaluated. Suggested recommendations were then proposed by interdisciplinary working groups and modified and graded in a nominal consensus procedure.
RESULTS
The value of mammographic screening is confirmed in the updated guideline. As for the diagnostic evaluation of breast cancer, computed tomography is recommended for staging in patients with a high risk of recurrence, in addition to conventional methods. As for surgical treatment, the evidence supporting locoregional surgery for primary breast cancer now affords an opportunity for de-escalation: complete resection yields the best outcome, but a safety margin of several millimeters is not necessary. Axillary dissection is no longer recommended except in certain defined situations. Radiotherapeutic approaches consist of hypofractionated applications. Adjuvant systemic therapy is indicated for patients in certain high-risk situations defined by a constellation of factors including tumor grade, patient age, node status, Ki-67 antigen expression, hormone receptor status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. All patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer should receive endocrine therapy. The indication for chemotherapy and/or anti-HER2 therapy should be determined in consideration of the expected benefit and side effects.
CONCLUSION
Consistent implementation of the recommendations in the newly updated guideline can help lessen morbidity and mortality from breast cancer. The actual extent to which breast cancer guidelines are implemented should be a topic of future research.
Topics: Aftercare; Aged; Biopsy, Needle; Breast Neoplasms; Drug Therapy; Female; Germany; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Oncology Nursing; Radiography; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 29807560
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0316 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2019Machine learning (ML) has become a vital part of medical imaging research. ML methods have evolved over the years from manual seeded inputs to automatic initializations....
BACKGROUND
Machine learning (ML) has become a vital part of medical imaging research. ML methods have evolved over the years from manual seeded inputs to automatic initializations. The advancements in the field of ML have led to more intelligent and self-reliant computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems, as the learning ability of ML methods has been constantly improving. More and more automated methods are emerging with deep feature learning and representations. Recent advancements of ML with deeper and extensive representation approaches, commonly known as deep learning (DL) approaches, have made a very significant impact on improving the diagnostics capabilities of the CAD systems.
OBJECTIVE
This review aimed to survey both traditional ML and DL literature with particular application for breast cancer diagnosis. The review also provided a brief insight into some well-known DL networks.
METHODS
In this paper, we present an overview of ML and DL techniques with particular application for breast cancer. Specifically, we search the PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Web of Science databases and retrieve the studies in DL for the past 5 years that have used multiview mammogram datasets.
RESULTS
The analysis of traditional ML reveals the limited usage of the methods, whereas the DL methods have great potential for implementation in clinical analysis and improve the diagnostic capability of existing CAD systems.
CONCLUSIONS
From the literature, it can be found that heterogeneous breast densities make masses more challenging to detect and classify compared with calcifications. The traditional ML methods present confined approaches limited to either particular density type or datasets. Although the DL methods show promising improvements in breast cancer diagnosis, there are still issues of data scarcity and computational cost, which have been overcome to a significant extent by applying data augmentation and improved computational power of DL algorithms.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Deep Learning; Female; Humans; Machine Learning; Mammography
PubMed: 31350843
DOI: 10.2196/14464 -
La Clinica Terapeutica 2020The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature concerning the use of the Precede-Proceed model (PPM) applied to educational programs and...
OBJETCTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature concerning the use of the Precede-Proceed model (PPM) applied to educational programs and health screenings contextsV.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
The search process was based on a selection of publications listed in Medline and Scopus. The keywords used were "Precede-Proceed" AND ("screening" OR "educational programs"). Studies included in the systematic review were subdivided into those applying the model in a screening context, and those applying it within educational programs.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies were retrieved, mostly performed in the USA and, generally, the promoting center was the University. In the context of cancer screening, the PPM model was most of all applied to Mammography Screening (5 of 13 studies in cancer screening), and Cervical Cancer Screening (5 of 13). Another three studies within the cancer field investigated Menopause-Inducing Cancer Treatments, Oral cancer prevention, and cancer screening in general. In the remaining studies, the model was applied in various screening areas, particularly chronic and degenerative diseases. There were many different study designs, most of which cross-sectional (8), though several RTCs (8) and focus groups (5) were also found. For the cross-sectional studies the methodological quality varied between 3/10 and 9/10, whilst for the RCTs it ranged from 2/5 to 3/5.
CONCLUSIONS
The PPM provides an excellent framework for health intervention programs especially in screening contexts, and could improve the understanding of the relationship between variables such as knowledge and screening. Given the complexity of a behavioral change process, certain important predisposing factors could be measured in future studies, and during health intervention planning.
Topics: Biobehavioral Sciences; Cross-Sectional Studies; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Mass Screening; Neoplasms; Public Health
PubMed: 32141490
DOI: 10.7417/CT.2020.2208