Dataset Information

Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (P-US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental ultrasound (S-US) screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM).

Methods

Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for P-US or S-US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), proportion of invasive cancers among screening-detected cancers (ProIC), and proportion of node-negative cancers among screening-detected invasive cancers (ProNNIC).

Results

Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which S-US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both primary MAM (P-MAM) and P-US were used. Meta-analyses revealed that S-US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82 to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 93% (95% CIs: 89 to 96%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 3.0/1000 (95% CIs: 1.8/1000 to 4.6/1000), RR of 8.8% (95% CIs: 5.0 to 13.4%), BR of 3.9% (95% CIs: 2.7 to 5.4%), ProIC of 73.9% (95% CIs: 49.0 to 93.7%), and ProNNIC of 70.9% (95% CIs: 46.0 to 91.6%). Compared with P-MAM screening, P-US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.5% (95% CIs:0.6 to 2.3%), P = 0.001] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [16.3% (95% CIs: 10.6 to 22.1%), P < 0.001]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNNIC.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests that S-US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM. P-US screening has shown to be comparable to P-MAM screening in women with dense breasts in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but with higher recall rates and higher detection rates for invasive cancers.

SUBMITTER: Yang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7268243 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yang Lei L Wang Shengfeng S Zhang Liwen L Sheng Chao C Song Fengju F Wang Ping P Huang Yubei Y

BMC cancer 20200601 1

<h4>Background</h4>To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (P-US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental ultrasound (S-US) screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM).<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for P-US or ...[more]

PMID: 32487106

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common diagnosed disease, and the second leading cause of death among women. Thus, due to its importance, the current research is aimed at identifying the preferences of individuals for improving breast cancer screening programs and the related policies.MethodA systematic search was applied on databases including - PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, SID- up to October 2022. The including articles were original or review papers that assessed individuals' willingness to pay. Also, articles including the effective variables or attributes for breast cancer screening program were included. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate Willingness to Pay (WTP) as a mean for breast cancer screening followed by vote-counting for identifying the variables and attributes correlated with screening.ResultsA total of 721 articles were identified during the first phase. After the screening process, thirteen papers were chosen, out of which, nine assessed mammography as a breast cancer screening program. The results of random effect meta-analysis on the including studies indicated that the rate of willingness to pay for screening was 0.28% of GDP per capita (95%CI: 0.14-0.43), which was found to be statistically significant. The result of stratified meta- analysis indicated that the rate of willingness to pay for screening was 0.22% of GDP per capita (95%CI: 0.07-0.37), which was found to be statistically significant. Generally, income was the basic factor for receiving screening services, and cost was an effective attribute for participating in screening programs.ConclusionsTo increase women's participation in breast cancer screening programs; it is essential to provide legitimate information and eliminate the barriers to women's non-participation. Offering rapid tests at low costs in healthcare centers (both in terms of travel and screening time) delivered by female staff can lead to an increase in women's willingness to participate in breast cancer screening programs.

Dataset Information

Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets