Cargando…

Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE: Digital 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 mam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Song, Soo Yeon, Park, Boyoung, Hong, Seri, Kim, Min Jung, Lee, Eun Hye, Jun, Jae Kwan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Breast Cancer Society 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31281732
http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24
_version_ 1783430575490596864
author Song, Soo Yeon
Park, Boyoung
Hong, Seri
Kim, Min Jung
Lee, Eun Hye
Jun, Jae Kwan
author_facet Song, Soo Yeon
Park, Boyoung
Hong, Seri
Kim, Min Jung
Lee, Eun Hye
Jun, Jae Kwan
author_sort Song, Soo Yeon
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Digital 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Thirteen 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6597401
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Korean Breast Cancer Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65974012019-07-05 Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Song, Soo Yeon Park, Boyoung Hong, Seri Kim, Min Jung Lee, Eun Hye Jun, Jae Kwan J Breast Cancer Original Article PURPOSE: Digital 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Thirteen 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. CONCLUSION: The 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. Korean Breast Cancer Society 2019-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6597401/ /pubmed/31281732 http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24 Text en © 2019 Korean Breast Cancer Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Song, Soo Yeon
Park, Boyoung
Hong, Seri
Kim, Min Jung
Lee, Eun Hye
Jun, Jae Kwan
Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of digital and screen-film mammography for breast-cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31281732
http://dx.doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24
work_keys_str_mv AT songsooyeon comparisonofdigitalandscreenfilmmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT parkboyoung comparisonofdigitalandscreenfilmmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hongseri comparisonofdigitalandscreenfilmmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kimminjung comparisonofdigitalandscreenfilmmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leeeunhye comparisonofdigitalandscreenfilmmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT junjaekwan comparisonofdigitalandscreenfilmmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis