Cargando…

Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: We examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens. METHODS: We searched six databases (2009–2020) for studies comparing DBT and digital mammography (DM), and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and/or recall rate by breast den...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Tong, Houssami, Nehmat, Noguchi, Naomi, Zeng, Aileen, Marinovich, M. Luke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9276736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35352019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01790-x
_version_ 1784745793577549824
author Li, Tong
Houssami, Nehmat
Noguchi, Naomi
Zeng, Aileen
Marinovich, M. Luke
author_facet Li, Tong
Houssami, Nehmat
Noguchi, Naomi
Zeng, Aileen
Marinovich, M. Luke
author_sort Li, Tong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens. METHODS: We searched six databases (2009–2020) for studies comparing DBT and digital mammography (DM), and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and/or recall rate by breast density. Meta-analysis was performed to pool incremental CDR and recall rate for DBT (versus DM) for high- and low-density (dichotomised based on BI-RADS) and within-study differences in incremental estimates between high- and low-density. Screening settings (European/US) were compared. RESULTS: Pooled within-study difference in incremental CDR for high- versus low-density was 1.0/1000 screens (95% CI: 0.3, 1.6; p = 0.003). Estimates were not significantly different in US (0.6/1000; 95% CI: 0.0, 1.3; p = 0.05) and European (1.9/1000; 95% CI: 0.3, 3.5; p = 0.02) settings (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). For incremental recall rate, within-study differences between density subgroups differed by setting (p < 0.001). Pooled incremental recall was less in high- versus low-density screens (−0.9%; 95% CI: −1.4%, −0.4%; p < 0.001) in US screening, and greater (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.3%; p = 0.001) in European screening. CONCLUSIONS: DBT has differential incremental cancer detection and recall by breast density. Although incremental CDR is greater in high-density, a substantial proportion of additional cancers is likely to be detected in low-density screens. Our findings may assist screening programmes considering DBT for density-tailored screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9276736
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92767362022-07-14 Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis Li, Tong Houssami, Nehmat Noguchi, Naomi Zeng, Aileen Marinovich, M. Luke Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: We examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens. METHODS: We searched six databases (2009–2020) for studies comparing DBT and digital mammography (DM), and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and/or recall rate by breast density. Meta-analysis was performed to pool incremental CDR and recall rate for DBT (versus DM) for high- and low-density (dichotomised based on BI-RADS) and within-study differences in incremental estimates between high- and low-density. Screening settings (European/US) were compared. RESULTS: Pooled within-study difference in incremental CDR for high- versus low-density was 1.0/1000 screens (95% CI: 0.3, 1.6; p = 0.003). Estimates were not significantly different in US (0.6/1000; 95% CI: 0.0, 1.3; p = 0.05) and European (1.9/1000; 95% CI: 0.3, 3.5; p = 0.02) settings (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). For incremental recall rate, within-study differences between density subgroups differed by setting (p < 0.001). Pooled incremental recall was less in high- versus low-density screens (−0.9%; 95% CI: −1.4%, −0.4%; p < 0.001) in US screening, and greater (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.3%; p = 0.001) in European screening. CONCLUSIONS: DBT has differential incremental cancer detection and recall by breast density. Although incremental CDR is greater in high-density, a substantial proportion of additional cancers is likely to be detected in low-density screens. Our findings may assist screening programmes considering DBT for density-tailored screening. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-03-28 2022-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9276736/ /pubmed/35352019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01790-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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 images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Li, Tong
Houssami, Nehmat
Noguchi, Naomi
Zeng, Aileen
Marinovich, M. Luke
Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9276736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35352019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01790-x
work_keys_str_mv AT litong differentialdetectionbybreastdensityfordigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographypopulationscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT houssaminehmat differentialdetectionbybreastdensityfordigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographypopulationscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT noguchinaomi differentialdetectionbybreastdensityfordigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographypopulationscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zengaileen differentialdetectionbybreastdensityfordigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographypopulationscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT marinovichmluke differentialdetectionbybreastdensityfordigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographypopulationscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis