Dataset Information

Supplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mammography is not effective in detecting breast cancer in dense breasts.

Methods

A search in Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases was conducted from January 1, 1980 to April 10, 2019 to identify women with dense breasts screened by mammography (M) and/or ultrasound (US). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

Results

A total of 21 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity values of M alone and M + US in patients were 74% and 96%, while specificity of the two methods were 93% and 87%, respectively. Screening sensitivity was significantly higher in M + US than M alone (risk ratio: M alone vs. M + US = 0.699, P < 0.001), but the slight difference in specificity was statistically significant (risk ratio = 1.060, P = 0.001). Pooled diagnostic performance of follow-up US after initial negative mammography demonstrated a high pooled sensitivity (96%) and specificity (88%). The findings were supported by subgroup analysis stratified by study country, US method and timing of US.

Conclusions

Breast cancer screening by supplemental US among women with dense breasts shows added detection sensitivity compared with M alone. However, US slightly decreased the diagnostic specificity for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of supplemental US in detecting malignancy in dense breasts should be considered additionally.

SUBMITTER: Yuan WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7434777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImproved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography.ObjectiveTo compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019.ExposuresAll women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity.ResultsAmong 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15).Conclusions and relevanceAmong women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Project description:BackgroundTo 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).MethodsElectronic 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).ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsCurrent 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.

Project description:BackgroundMammographic screening alone will miss a certain fraction of malignancies, as evidenced by retrospective reviews of mammograms following a subsequent screening. Mammographic breast density is a marker for increased breast cancer risk and is associated with a higher risk of interval breast cancer, i.e. cancer detected between screening tests. The purpose of this review is to estimate risks and benefits of supplemental breast ultrasound in women with negative mammographic screening with dense breast tissue.MethodsA systematic search and review of studies involving mammography and breast ultrasound for screening of breast cancer was conducted. The search was performed for the period 1/2000-8/2008 within the data source of PubMed, DARE, and Cochrane databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined prospectively, and the Oxford evidence classification system for diagnostic studies was used for evidence level. The parameters biopsy rate, positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy, cancer yield for breast ultrasound alone, and carcinoma detection rate by breast density were extracted or constructed.ResultsThe systematic search identified no randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews, six cohort studies of intermediate level of evidence (3b) were found. Only two of the studies included adequate follow-up of subjects with negative or benign findings. Supplemental breast ultrasound after negative mammographic screening permitted diagnosis of primarily invasive carcinomas in 0.32% of women in breast density type categories 2-4 of the American College of Radiology (ACR); mean tumor size for those identified was 9.9 mm, 90% with negative lymph node status. Most detected cancers occurred in mammographically dense breast ACR types 3 and 4. Biopsy rates were in the range 2.3%-4.7%, with PPV of 8.4-13.7% for those biopsied due to positive ultrasound, or about one third of the PPV of biopsies due to mammography.LimitationsThe study populations included wide age ranges, and the application to women age 50-69 years as proposed for mammographic screening could result in less striking benefit. Further validation studies should employ a uniform assessment system such as BI-RADS and report not only PPV, but also negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionSupplemental breast ultrasound in the population of women with mammographically dense breast tissue (ACR 3 and 4) permits detection of small, otherwise occult, breast cancers. Potential adverse impacts for women in this intermediate risk group are associated with an increased biopsy rate.

Project description:BackgroundIncreased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.MethodsApproximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.DiscussionThis study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.