Dataset Information

Breast cancer screening using synthesized two-dimensional mammography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the screening performance of synthesized mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography (DM) plus DBT or DM alone.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2021. Eligible population-based studies on breast cancer screening comparing SM/DBT with DM/DBT or DM in asymptomatic women were included. A random-effect model was used in this meta-analysis. Data were summarized as risk differences (RDs), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Thirteen studies involving 1,370,670 participants were included. Compared with DM/DBT, screening using SM/DBT had similar breast cancer detection rate (CDR) (RD = -0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = -0.4 to 0.2, p = 0.557, I² = 0 %), but lower recall rate (RD = -0.56 %, 95 % CI = -1.03 to -0.08, p = 0.022, I² = 90 %) and lower biopsy rate (RD = -0.33 %, 95 % CI = -0.56 to -0.10, p = 0.005, I² = 78 %). Compared with DM, SM/DBT improved CDR (RD = 2.0/1000 screens, 95 % CI = 1.4 to 2.6, p < 0.001, I² = 63 %) and reduced recall rate (RD = -0.95 %, 95 % CI = -1.91 to -0.002, p = 0.049, I² = 99 %). However, SM/DBT and DM had similar interval cancer rate (ICR) (RD = 0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = -0.6 to 0.8, p = 0.836, I² = 71 %) and biopsy rate (RD = -0.05 %, 95 % CI = -0.35 to 0.24, p = 0.727, I² = 93 %).

Conclusions

Screening using SM/DBT has similar breast cancer detection but reduces recall and biopsy when compared with DM/DBT. SM/DBT improves CDR when compared with DM, but they have little difference in ICR. SM/DBT could replace DM/DBT in breast cancer screening to reduce radiation dose.

SUBMITTER: Zeng B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8333340 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:PurposeDigital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data.ResultsThirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.70-0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70-0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates.ConclusionThe breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.

Project description:BackgroundThe recent controversy about using mammography to screen for breast cancer based on randomized controlled trials over 3 decades in Western countries has not only eclipsed the paradigm of evidence-based medicine, but also puts health decision-makers in countries where breast cancer screening is still being considered in a dilemma to adopt or abandon such a well-established screening modality.MethodsWe reanalyzed the empirical data from the Health Insurance Plan trial in 1963 to the UK age trial in 1991 and their follow-up data published until 2015. We first performed Bayesian conjugated meta-analyses on the heterogeneity of attendance rate, sensitivity, and over-detection and their impacts on advanced stage breast cancer and death from breast cancer across trials using Bayesian Poisson fixed- and random-effect regression model. Bayesian meta-analysis of causal model was then developed to assess a cascade of causal relationships regarding the impact of both attendance and sensitivity on 2 main outcomes.ResultsThe causes of heterogeneity responsible for the disparities across the trials were clearly manifested in 3 components. The attendance rate ranged from 61.3% to 90.4%. The sensitivity estimates show substantial variation from 57.26% to 87.97% but improved with time from 64% in 1963 to 82% in 1980 when Bayesian conjugated meta-analysis was conducted in chronological order. The percentage of over-detection shows a wide range from 0% to 28%, adjusting for long lead-time. The impacts of the attendance rate and sensitivity on the 2 main outcomes were statistically significant. Causal inference made by linking these causal relationships with emphasis on the heterogeneity of the attendance rate and sensitivity accounted for the variation in the reduction of advanced breast cancer (none-30%) and of mortality (none-31%). We estimated a 33% (95% CI: 24-42%) and 13% (95% CI: 6-20%) breast cancer mortality reduction for the best scenario (90% attendance rate and 95% sensitivity) and the poor scenario (30% attendance rate and 55% sensitivity), respectively.ConclusionElucidating the scenarios from high to low performance and learning from the experiences of these trials helps screening policy-makers contemplate on how to avoid errors made in ineffective studies and emulate the effective studies to save women lives.

Project description:BackgroundThe magnitude of the benefit associated with screening has been debated. We present a meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies on the effects of mammography screening.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase for articles published through January 31, 2013. Studies were included if they reported: 1) a population-wide breast cancer screening program using mammography with 5+ years of data post-implementation; 2) a comparison group with equal access to therapies; and 3) breast cancer mortality. Studies excluded were: RCTs, case-control, or simulation studies. We defined quasi-experimental as studies that compared either geographical, historical or birth cohorts with a screening program to an equivalent cohort without a screening program. Meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using the metan command, random effects. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for ages screened: under 50, 50 to 69 and over 70 and weighted by population and person-years.ResultsAmong 4,903 published papers that were retrieved, 19 studies matched eligibility criteria. Birth cohort studies reported a significant benefit for women screened <age 50, but not for women screened ages 50-69. Significant reductions in breast cancer mortality were observed in historical comparisons. For geographical comparisons, there was a significant 20% reduction in mortality for women <age 50 and a significant 21-22% reduction for women ages 50-69. Studies that tested the interaction of geographical and historical comparisons produced a pooled, significant 13-17% reduction in incident breast cancer mortality for women ages 50-69, but the effects in most individual studies were non-significant. All studies of women ages 70+ were non-significant.ConclusionsMammography screening may have modest effects on cancer mortality between the ages of 50 and 69 and non-significant effects for women older than age 70. Results are consistent with meta-analyses of RCTs. Effects on total mortality could not be assessed because of the limited number of studies.