Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Published:2020-12-29 Issue:6 Volume:113 Page:680-690
ISSN:0027-8874
Container-title:JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Alabousi Mostafa¹,Wadera Akshay¹,Kashif Al-Ghita Mohammed²,Kashef Al-Ghetaa Rayeh³,Salameh Jean-Paul⁴,Pozdnyakov Alex⁵,Zha Nanxi¹,Samoilov Lucy¹,Dehmoobad Sharifabadi Anahita¹,Sadeghirad Behnam⁶,Freitas Vivianne⁷,McInnes Matthew DF⁸,Alabousi Abdullah⁹

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

2. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada

3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

4. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

5. Faculty of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

6. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

7. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

8. Department of Radiology and Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada

9. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Abstract

Abstract Background Our 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. Methods MEDLINE 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. Results Forty-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%). Conclusions Our 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.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

Link

http://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/jnci/djaa205/36209871/djaa205.pdf

Reference69 articles.

1. Comparison of resource utilization and clinical outcomes following screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: findings from a learning health system;Alsheik;Acad Radiol,2019

2. Screening mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: utilization updates;Boroumand;Am J Roentgenol,2018

3. Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women;Sardanelli;Insights Imaging,2017

4. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study;Bernardi;Lancet Oncol,2016

5. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium;Conant;Breast Cancer Res Treat,2016

Cited by 48 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium;European Journal of Cancer;2024-03

2. A Review of Imaging Methods and Recent Nanoparticles for Breast Cancer Diagnosis;Information;2023-12-22

3. Breast Cancer Detection: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Mammography versus Digital Mammography;Radiology;2023-12-01

4. Synthetic Mammography: Benefits, Drawbacks, and Pitfalls;RadioGraphics;2023-10-01

5. Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma;Breast Cancer Research and Treatment;2023-09-11