Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in women with dense or non-dense breast tissue: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Hao Lin, Yimeng Zhang, Lixia Wu, Ceng Li
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in women with dense or non-dense breast tissue: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Hao Lin, Yimeng Zhang, Lixia Wu, Ceng Li","doi":"10.17219/acem/185522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite its excellent screening effectiveness and sensitivity for breast cancer (BC), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is controversial due to its high radiation exposure and long reading time. This study examines the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and digital mammography (DM) for BC screening and diagnosis in women with dense or non-dense breast tissue.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>PRISMA-compliant searches were performed on Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases for articles comparing DBT and DM for BC screening until March 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan sofware, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess study quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis included 11 trials with a total of 2,124,018 individuals. Screening with DBT resulted in a greater cancer detection rate, as demonstrated by a risk ratio (RR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.14-1.41). Digital breast tomosynthesis also had a reduced recall rate, with a RR of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-0.99), higher sensitivity and specificity values (pooled sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.59-0.99)) and pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.42-1.0)) than DM (pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.52-1.0) and pooled specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.12-1.0)). All acquired data exhibited reliability, lack of bias and statistical significance (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Digital breast tomosynthesis is a more effective screening and diagnostic assessment tool for women with dense or non-dense breasts than DM in terms of incremental cancer detection, sensitivity and recall rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":7306,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/185522","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite its excellent screening effectiveness and sensitivity for breast cancer (BC), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is controversial due to its high radiation exposure and long reading time. This study examines the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and digital mammography (DM) for BC screening and diagnosis in women with dense or non-dense breast tissue.

Material and methods: PRISMA-compliant searches were performed on Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases for articles comparing DBT and DM for BC screening until March 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan sofware, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess study quality.

Results: This meta-analysis included 11 trials with a total of 2,124,018 individuals. Screening with DBT resulted in a greater cancer detection rate, as demonstrated by a risk ratio (RR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.14-1.41). Digital breast tomosynthesis also had a reduced recall rate, with a RR of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-0.99), higher sensitivity and specificity values (pooled sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.59-0.99)) and pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.42-1.0)) than DM (pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.52-1.0) and pooled specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.12-1.0)). All acquired data exhibited reliability, lack of bias and statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Digital breast tomosynthesis is a more effective screening and diagnostic assessment tool for women with dense or non-dense breasts than DM in terms of incremental cancer detection, sensitivity and recall rate.

乳腺组织致密或不致密妇女的数字乳腺断层合成术和数字乳腺 X 线照相术的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:尽管数字乳腺断层扫描(DBT)对乳腺癌(BC)具有极佳的筛查效果和灵敏度,但由于其辐射量大、读取时间长而备受争议。本研究探讨了数字乳腺断层扫描(DBT)和数字乳腺X光摄影术(DM)对致密或不致密乳腺组织妇女进行乳腺癌筛查和诊断的诊断准确性:在Medline、Embase、PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库中对2023年3月之前比较DBT和DM用于BC筛查的文章进行了符合PRISMA标准的检索。使用RevMan软件进行荟萃分析,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具评估研究质量:这项荟萃分析包括11项试验,共涉及2124018人。使用 DBT 进行筛查可提高癌症检出率,风险比 (RR) 为 1.27(95% 置信区间 (95%CI):1.14-1.41)。数字乳腺断层合成也降低了召回率,RR 为 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-0.99),灵敏度和特异性值(汇总灵敏度为 0.91 (95% CI: 0.59-0.99))和汇总特异性为 0.90 (95% CI: 0.42-1.0))均高于 DM(汇总灵敏度为 0.86 (95% CI: 0.52-1.0),汇总特异性为 0.81 (95% CI: 0.12-1.0))。所有获得的数据均可靠、无偏差且具有统计学意义(P < 0.05):数字乳腺断层合成术是针对乳腺致密或不致密妇女的一种更有效的筛查和诊断评估工具,在癌症检测增量、灵敏度和召回率方面均优于 DM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine
Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
153
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine has been published by the Wroclaw Medical University since 1992. Establishing the medical journal was the idea of Prof. Bogumił Halawa, Chair of the Department of Cardiology, and was fully supported by the Rector of Wroclaw Medical University, Prof. Zbigniew Knapik. Prof. Halawa was also the first editor-in-chief, between 1992-1997. The journal, then entitled "Postępy Medycyny Klinicznej i Doświadczalnej", appeared quarterly. Prof. Leszek Paradowski was editor-in-chief from 1997-1999. In 1998 he initiated alterations in the profile and cover design of the journal which were accepted by the Editorial Board. The title was changed to Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine. Articles in English were welcomed. A number of outstanding representatives of medical science from Poland and abroad were invited to participate in the newly established International Editorial Staff. Prof. Antonina Harłozińska-Szmyrka was editor-in-chief in years 2000-2005, in years 2006-2007 once again prof. Leszek Paradowski and prof. Maria Podolak-Dawidziak was editor-in-chief in years 2008-2016. Since 2017 the editor-in chief is prof. Maciej Bagłaj. Since July 2005, original papers have been published only in English. Case reports are no longer accepted. The manuscripts are reviewed by two independent reviewers and a statistical reviewer, and English texts are proofread by a native speaker. The journal has been indexed in several databases: Scopus, Ulrich’sTM International Periodicals Directory, Index Copernicus and since 2007 in Thomson Reuters databases: Science Citation Index Expanded i Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition. In 2010 the journal obtained Impact Factor which is now 1.179 pts. Articles published in the journal are worth 15 points among Polish journals according to the Polish Committee for Scientific Research and 169.43 points according to the Index Copernicus. Since November 7, 2012, Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine has been indexed and included in National Library of Medicine’s MEDLINE database. English abstracts printed in the journal are included and searchable using PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信