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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |