Breast cancer screening using synthesized two-dimensional mammography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (October 2021)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Breast cancer screening using synthesized two-dimensional mammography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (October 2021)
- Main Title:
- Breast cancer screening using synthesized two-dimensional mammography: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Authors:
- Zeng, Baoqi
Yu, Kai
Gao, Le
Zeng, Xueyang
Zhou, Qingxin - Abstract:
- Abstract: Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the screening performance of synthesized mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography (DM) plus DBT or DM alone. Methods: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2021. Eligible population-based studies on breast cancer screening comparing SM/DBT with DM/DBT or DM in asymptomatic women were included. A random-effect model was used in this meta-analysis. Data were summarized as risk differences (RDs), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirteen studies involving 1, 370, 670 participants were included. Compared with DM/DBT, screening using SM/DBT had similar breast cancer detection rate (CDR) (RD = −0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = −0.4 to 0.2, p = 0.557, I 2 = 0 %), but lower recall rate (RD = −0.56 %, 95 % CI = −1.03 to −0.08, p = 0.022, I 2 = 90 %) and lower biopsy rate (RD = −0.33 %, 95 % CI = −0.56 to −0.10, p = 0.005, I 2 = 78 %). Compared with DM, SM/DBT improved CDR (RD = 2.0/1000 screens, 95 % CI = 1.4 to 2.6, p < 0.001, I 2 = 63 %) and reduced recall rate (RD = −0.95 %, 95 % CI = −1.91 to −0.002, p = 0.049, I 2 = 99 %). However, SM/DBT and DM had similar interval cancer rate (ICR) (RD = 0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = −0.6 to 0.8, p = 0.836, I 2 = 71 %) and biopsy rate (RD = −0.05 %, 95 % CI = −0.35 to 0.24, p = 0.727, I 2 = 93 %). Conclusions: Screening using SM/DBT hasAbstract: Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the screening performance of synthesized mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography (DM) plus DBT or DM alone. Methods: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2021. Eligible population-based studies on breast cancer screening comparing SM/DBT with DM/DBT or DM in asymptomatic women were included. A random-effect model was used in this meta-analysis. Data were summarized as risk differences (RDs), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirteen studies involving 1, 370, 670 participants were included. Compared with DM/DBT, screening using SM/DBT had similar breast cancer detection rate (CDR) (RD = −0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = −0.4 to 0.2, p = 0.557, I 2 = 0 %), but lower recall rate (RD = −0.56 %, 95 % CI = −1.03 to −0.08, p = 0.022, I 2 = 90 %) and lower biopsy rate (RD = −0.33 %, 95 % CI = −0.56 to −0.10, p = 0.005, I 2 = 78 %). Compared with DM, SM/DBT improved CDR (RD = 2.0/1000 screens, 95 % CI = 1.4 to 2.6, p < 0.001, I 2 = 63 %) and reduced recall rate (RD = −0.95 %, 95 % CI = −1.91 to −0.002, p = 0.049, I 2 = 99 %). However, SM/DBT and DM had similar interval cancer rate (ICR) (RD = 0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = −0.6 to 0.8, p = 0.836, I 2 = 71 %) and biopsy rate (RD = −0.05 %, 95 % CI = −0.35 to 0.24, p = 0.727, I 2 = 93 %). Conclusions: Screening using SM/DBT has similar breast cancer detection but reduces recall and biopsy when compared with DM/DBT. SM/DBT improves CDR when compared with DM, but they have little difference in ICR. SM/DBT could replace DM/DBT in breast cancer screening to reduce radiation dose. Highlights: Screening using SM/DBT has similar breast cancer detection but reduces recall and biopsy when compared with DM/DBT. Screening using SM/DBT improves cancer detection rate when compared with DM/DBT alone. There was no significant difference in interval cancer rate between SM/DBT and DM. SM/DBT could replace DM/DBT in breast cancer screening to reduce radiation dose. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Breast. Volume 59(2021)
- Journal:
- Breast
- Issue:
- Volume 59(2021)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 59, Issue 2021 (2021)
- Year:
- 2021
- Volume:
- 59
- Issue:
- 2021
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2021-0059-2021-0000
- Page Start:
- 270
- Page End:
- 278
- Publication Date:
- 2021-10
- Subjects:
- Breast cancer -- Cancer screening -- Digital breast tomosynthesis -- Meta-analysis
Breast -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Breast -- Tumors -- Periodicals
Breast -- Periodicals
Electronic journals
Periodicals
616 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09609776 ↗
http://firstsearch.oclc.org ↗
http://firstsearch.oclc.org/journal=0960-9776;screen=info;ECOIP ↗
http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/brst/ ↗
http://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/journalIssue/09609776 ↗
http://www.clinicalkey.com.au/dura/browse/journalIssue/09609776 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.breast.2021.07.016 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0960-9776
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 2277.492700
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 19341.xml