Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Tong Li , Jennifer Isautier , Janie M. Lee , M. Luke Marinovich , Nehmat Houssami
{"title":"Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review","authors":"Tong Li ,&nbsp;Jennifer Isautier ,&nbsp;Janie M. Lee ,&nbsp;M. Luke Marinovich ,&nbsp;Nehmat Houssami","doi":"10.1016/j.clbc.2024.09.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is limited evidence on the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in populations at increased risk of breast cancer. Our objective was to systematically review evidence on the performance of DBT versus digital mammography (DM) in women with a family history of breast cancer (FHBC).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched 5 databases (2011–January 2024) for studies comparing DBT and DM in women with a FHBC that reported any measure of cancer detection, recall, sensitivity and specificity. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five (4 screening, 1 diagnostic) studies were included (total 3089 DBT, 3024 DM) with most (4/5) being prospective including 1 RCT. All studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias or applicability concern. Four screening studies reported recall rate (range: DBT: 2.7%-4.5%, DM: 2.8%-11.5%) with 3 reporting DBT had lower rates than DM. Cancer detection rates (CDR) were reported in the same studies (DBT: 5.1-11.6 per 1000, DM: 3.8-8.3); 3 reported higher CDR for DBT (vs. DM), and 1 reported same CDR for both. Compared with DM, higher values for sensitivity, specificity and PPV for DBT were reported in 2 studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review provides early evidence that DBT may outperform DM for screening women with a FHBC. Our findings support further evaluation of DBT in this population. However, summarized findings were based on few studies and participants, and high-quality studies with improved methodology are needed to address biases identified in our review.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10197,"journal":{"name":"Clinical breast cancer","volume":"25 2","pages":"Pages e103-e112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical breast cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152682092400274X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is limited evidence on the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in populations at increased risk of breast cancer. Our objective was to systematically review evidence on the performance of DBT versus digital mammography (DM) in women with a family history of breast cancer (FHBC).

Methods

We searched 5 databases (2011–January 2024) for studies comparing DBT and DM in women with a FHBC that reported any measure of cancer detection, recall, sensitivity and specificity. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C.

Results

Five (4 screening, 1 diagnostic) studies were included (total 3089 DBT, 3024 DM) with most (4/5) being prospective including 1 RCT. All studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias or applicability concern. Four screening studies reported recall rate (range: DBT: 2.7%-4.5%, DM: 2.8%-11.5%) with 3 reporting DBT had lower rates than DM. Cancer detection rates (CDR) were reported in the same studies (DBT: 5.1-11.6 per 1000, DM: 3.8-8.3); 3 reported higher CDR for DBT (vs. DM), and 1 reported same CDR for both. Compared with DM, higher values for sensitivity, specificity and PPV for DBT were reported in 2 studies.

Conclusion

This review provides early evidence that DBT may outperform DM for screening women with a FHBC. Our findings support further evaluation of DBT in this population. However, summarized findings were based on few studies and participants, and high-quality studies with improved methodology are needed to address biases identified in our review.
在有乳腺癌家族史的女性中,数字乳腺 X 线断层摄影与数字乳腺 X 线照相术的性能对比:系统回顾
背景:关于数字乳腺断层扫描(DBT)在乳腺癌高危人群中的表现,目前证据有限。我们的目的是系统地回顾有乳腺癌家族史(FHBC)的女性中,数字乳腺断层摄影(DBT)与数字乳腺X光摄影(DM)的性能对比证据:我们检索了 5 个数据库(2011 年 1 月至 2024 年 1 月),以查找在有乳腺癌家族史的女性中比较 DBT 和 DM 的研究,这些研究报告了癌症检测、召回、灵敏度和特异性的任何指标。研究结果采用描述性和叙述性方法呈现。使用 QUADAS-2/C 评估偏倚风险:结果:共纳入了五项(4 项筛查,1 项诊断)研究(共计 3089 项 DBT,3024 项 DM),其中大部分(4/5)为前瞻性研究,包括一项 RCT。所有研究均被评估为存在高偏倚风险或适用性问题。四项筛查研究报告了召回率(范围:DBT:2.7%-4.5%,DM:2.8%-11.5%),其中三项报告称 DBT 的召回率低于 DM。相同的研究报告了癌症检出率(CDR)(DBT:5.1-11.6‰,DM:3.8-8.3‰);3 项研究报告 DBT 的 CDR 较高(与 DM 相比),1 项研究报告两者的 CDR 相同。与 DM 相比,2 项研究报告了 DBT 更高的灵敏度、特异性和 PPV 值:本综述提供了早期证据,证明在筛查患有 FHBC 的女性时,DBT 可能优于 DM。我们的研究结果支持在这一人群中进一步评估 DBT。然而,总结的结果是基于少数研究和参与者得出的,因此需要进行方法改进的高质量研究,以解决我们的综述中发现的偏差。
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
Clinical breast cancer
Clinical breast cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
174
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Breast Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of breast cancer. Clinical Breast Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to breast cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research reports from various therapeutic modalities, cancer genetics, drug sensitivity and resistance, novel imaging, tumor genomics, biomarkers, and chemoprevention strategies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信