Wasim Hamad, Michael J Michell, Jonathan P Myles, Fiona J Gilbert, Yan Chen, Huajie Jin, John Loveland, Mark Halling-Brown, Keshthra Satchithananda, Juliet Morel, Rema Wasan, Caroline Taylor, Nisha Sharma, Alexandra Valencia, Will Teh, Faisal Majid, Ronald M De Visser, Asif Iqbal, Stephen W Duffy
{"title":"在乳腺癌筛查中,断层合成加合成乳腺 X 光造影与全视野数字乳腺 X 光造影(带或不带断层合成)的诊断性能对比:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Wasim Hamad, Michael J Michell, Jonathan P Myles, Fiona J Gilbert, Yan Chen, Huajie Jin, John Loveland, Mark Halling-Brown, Keshthra Satchithananda, Juliet Morel, Rema Wasan, Caroline Taylor, Nisha Sharma, Alexandra Valencia, Will Teh, Faisal Majid, Ronald M De Visser, Asif Iqbal, Stephen W Duffy","doi":"10.1002/ijc.35217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exposes women to a higher radiation dose. A synthetic 2D mammogram (S2D) is a two-dimensional image constructed from DBT. We aim to evaluate the S2D performance when used alone or combined with DBT compared to FFDM alone or with DBT. Studies were included if they recruited screening participants and reported on S2D performance. Studies were excluded if they included symptomatic patients, imaging was for diagnostic purposes, or if participants had a breast cancer history. Meta-analyses for cancer detection rates (CDR) and Specificities were conducted where available. Differences in the performance of imaging modalities were calculated within individual studies, and these were pooled by meta-analysis. Out of 3241 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analysis. The estimated combined difference in CDRs per thousand among individual studies that reported on DBT plus S2D vs. FFDM and those reporting on DBT plus S2D versus DBT plus FFDM was 2.03 (95% CI 0.81-3.25) and - 0.15 (95% CI -1.17 to 0.86), respectively. The estimated difference in percent specificities was 1.13 (95% CI -0.06 to 2.31) in studies comparing DBT plus S2D and FFDM. In studies comparing DBT plus S2D and DBT plus FFDM, the estimated difference in specificities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.59-1.56). DBT plus S2D showed comparable accuracy to FFDM plus DPT and improved cancer detection to FFDM alone. Integrating S2D with DBT in breast cancer screening is safe and preserves performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":180,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wasim Hamad, Michael J Michell, Jonathan P Myles, Fiona J Gilbert, Yan Chen, Huajie Jin, John Loveland, Mark Halling-Brown, Keshthra Satchithananda, Juliet Morel, Rema Wasan, Caroline Taylor, Nisha Sharma, Alexandra Valencia, Will Teh, Faisal Majid, Ronald M De Visser, Asif Iqbal, Stephen W Duffy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ijc.35217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exposes women to a higher radiation dose. A synthetic 2D mammogram (S2D) is a two-dimensional image constructed from DBT. We aim to evaluate the S2D performance when used alone or combined with DBT compared to FFDM alone or with DBT. Studies were included if they recruited screening participants and reported on S2D performance. Studies were excluded if they included symptomatic patients, imaging was for diagnostic purposes, or if participants had a breast cancer history. Meta-analyses for cancer detection rates (CDR) and Specificities were conducted where available. Differences in the performance of imaging modalities were calculated within individual studies, and these were pooled by meta-analysis. Out of 3241 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analysis. The estimated combined difference in CDRs per thousand among individual studies that reported on DBT plus S2D vs. FFDM and those reporting on DBT plus S2D versus DBT plus FFDM was 2.03 (95% CI 0.81-3.25) and - 0.15 (95% CI -1.17 to 0.86), respectively. The estimated difference in percent specificities was 1.13 (95% CI -0.06 to 2.31) in studies comparing DBT plus S2D and FFDM. In studies comparing DBT plus S2D and DBT plus FFDM, the estimated difference in specificities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.59-1.56). DBT plus S2D showed comparable accuracy to FFDM plus DPT and improved cancer detection to FFDM alone. Integrating S2D with DBT in breast cancer screening is safe and preserves performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Cancer\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.35217\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.35217","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exposes women to a higher radiation dose. A synthetic 2D mammogram (S2D) is a two-dimensional image constructed from DBT. We aim to evaluate the S2D performance when used alone or combined with DBT compared to FFDM alone or with DBT. Studies were included if they recruited screening participants and reported on S2D performance. Studies were excluded if they included symptomatic patients, imaging was for diagnostic purposes, or if participants had a breast cancer history. Meta-analyses for cancer detection rates (CDR) and Specificities were conducted where available. Differences in the performance of imaging modalities were calculated within individual studies, and these were pooled by meta-analysis. Out of 3241 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analysis. The estimated combined difference in CDRs per thousand among individual studies that reported on DBT plus S2D vs. FFDM and those reporting on DBT plus S2D versus DBT plus FFDM was 2.03 (95% CI 0.81-3.25) and - 0.15 (95% CI -1.17 to 0.86), respectively. The estimated difference in percent specificities was 1.13 (95% CI -0.06 to 2.31) in studies comparing DBT plus S2D and FFDM. In studies comparing DBT plus S2D and DBT plus FFDM, the estimated difference in specificities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.59-1.56). DBT plus S2D showed comparable accuracy to FFDM plus DPT and improved cancer detection to FFDM alone. Integrating S2D with DBT in breast cancer screening is safe and preserves performance.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Cancer (IJC) is the official journal of the Union for International Cancer Control—UICC; it appears twice a month. IJC invites submission of manuscripts under a broad scope of topics relevant to experimental and clinical cancer research and publishes original Research Articles and Short Reports under the following categories:
-Cancer Epidemiology-
Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics-
Infectious Causes of Cancer-
Innovative Tools and Methods-
Molecular Cancer Biology-
Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment-
Tumor Markers and Signatures-
Cancer Therapy and Prevention