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。

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全场数字乳腺 X 线断层摄影术(DBT)会使妇女受到更高的辐射剂量。合成二维乳腺 X 光片(S2D)是由 DBT 构建的二维图像。我们的目的是评估 S2D 单独使用或与 DBT 结合使用时的性能,并与 FFDM 单独使用或与 DBT 结合使用时的性能进行比较。如果研究招募了筛查参与者并报告了 S2D 性能,则纳入研究。无症状患者、以诊断为目的的成像或参与者有乳腺癌病史的研究将被排除在外。在有条件的情况下,对癌症检出率(CDR)和特异性进行了元分析。在单个研究中计算成像模式的性能差异,并通过荟萃分析对这些差异进行汇总。在确定的 3241 条记录中,有 17 项研究被纳入综述,13 项被纳入荟萃分析。在报告了 DBT 加 S2D 与 FFDM 的单项研究中,以及在报告了 DBT 加 S2D 与 DBT 加 FFDM 的单项研究中,每千人 CDR 的估计综合差异分别为 2.03(95% CI 0.81-3.25)和-0.15(95% CI -1.17 至 0.86)。在比较 DBT 加 S2D 和 FFDM 的研究中,特异性百分比的估计差异为 1.13(95% CI -0.06 至 2.31)。在比较 DBT 加 S2D 和 DBT 加 FFDM 的研究中,特异性的估计差异为 1.08(95% CI 0.59-1.56)。DBT 加 S2D 显示出与 FFDM 加 DPT 相当的准确性,并比单独使用 FFDM 提高了癌症检测率。在乳腺癌筛查中将 S2D 与 DBT 相结合是安全的,并且可以保持筛查效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.40
自引率
3.10%
发文量
460
审稿时长
2 months
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
×
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