Cargando…

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically review and to meta-analyse the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in women with mammographically dense breasts in screening and diagnosis. METHODS: Two independent reviewers identified screening or diagnostic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Phi, Xuan-Anh, Tagliafico, Alberto, Houssami, Nehmat, Greuter, Marcel J. W., de Bock, Geertruida H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5883365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29615072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3
_version_ 1783311635936444416
author Phi, Xuan-Anh
Tagliafico, Alberto
Houssami, Nehmat
Greuter, Marcel J. W.
de Bock, Geertruida H.
author_facet Phi, Xuan-Anh
Tagliafico, Alberto
Houssami, Nehmat
Greuter, Marcel J. W.
de Bock, Geertruida H.
author_sort Phi, Xuan-Anh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically review and to meta-analyse the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in women with mammographically dense breasts in screening and diagnosis. METHODS: Two independent reviewers identified screening or diagnostic studies reporting at least one of four outcomes (cancer detection rate-CDR, recall rate, sensitivity and specificity) for DBT and DM in women with mammographically dense breasts. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of CDR and recall rate used a random effects model. Summary ROC curve summarized sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included (five diagnostic; eleven screening). In diagnosis, DBT increased sensitivity (84%–90%) versus DM alone (69%–86%) but not specificity. DBT improved CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.31). In screening, DBT + DM increased CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.20–1.47 for retrospective studies; RR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.08–2.11 for prospective studies). Recall rate was significantly reduced by DBT + DM in retrospective studies (RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.80) but not in two prospective studies (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.76–1.63). CONCLUSION: In women with mammographically dense breasts, DBT+/−DM increased CDR significantly (versus DM) in screening and diagnosis. In diagnosis, DBT+/−DM increased sensitivity but not specificity. The effect of DBT + DM on recall rate in screening dense breasts varied between studies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5883365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58833652018-04-10 Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis Phi, Xuan-Anh Tagliafico, Alberto Houssami, Nehmat Greuter, Marcel J. W. de Bock, Geertruida H. BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically review and to meta-analyse the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in women with mammographically dense breasts in screening and diagnosis. METHODS: Two independent reviewers identified screening or diagnostic studies reporting at least one of four outcomes (cancer detection rate-CDR, recall rate, sensitivity and specificity) for DBT and DM in women with mammographically dense breasts. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of CDR and recall rate used a random effects model. Summary ROC curve summarized sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included (five diagnostic; eleven screening). In diagnosis, DBT increased sensitivity (84%–90%) versus DM alone (69%–86%) but not specificity. DBT improved CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.31). In screening, DBT + DM increased CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.20–1.47 for retrospective studies; RR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.08–2.11 for prospective studies). Recall rate was significantly reduced by DBT + DM in retrospective studies (RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.80) but not in two prospective studies (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.76–1.63). CONCLUSION: In women with mammographically dense breasts, DBT+/−DM increased CDR significantly (versus DM) in screening and diagnosis. In diagnosis, DBT+/−DM increased sensitivity but not specificity. The effect of DBT + DM on recall rate in screening dense breasts varied between studies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5883365/ /pubmed/29615072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Phi, Xuan-Anh
Tagliafico, Alberto
Houssami, Nehmat
Greuter, Marcel J. W.
de Bock, Geertruida H.
Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5883365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29615072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3
work_keys_str_mv AT phixuananh digitalbreasttomosynthesisforbreastcancerscreeninganddiagnosisinwomenwithdensebreastsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tagliaficoalberto digitalbreasttomosynthesisforbreastcancerscreeninganddiagnosisinwomenwithdensebreastsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT houssaminehmat digitalbreasttomosynthesisforbreastcancerscreeninganddiagnosisinwomenwithdensebreastsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT greutermarceljw digitalbreasttomosynthesisforbreastcancerscreeninganddiagnosisinwomenwithdensebreastsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT debockgeertruidah digitalbreasttomosynthesisforbreastcancerscreeninganddiagnosisinwomenwithdensebreastsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis