Digital breast tomosynthesis compared to diagnostic mammographic projections (including magnification) among women recalled at screening mammography: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).
breast neoplasms
digital breast tomosyntheses
mass screening
practice guidelines
systematic review
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
revised:
12
01
2021
received:
02
10
2020
accepted:
08
02
2021
pubmed:
7
3
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
entrez:
6
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diagnostic mammography projections (DxMM) have been traditionally used in the assessment of women recalled after a suspicious screening mammogram. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reduces the tissue overlap effect, thus improving image assessment. Some studies have suggested DBT might replace DxMM with at least equivalent performance. To evaluate the replacement of DxMM with DBT in women recalled at screening. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify diagnostic paired cohort studies or RCTs comparing DBT vs DxMM, published in English that: reported accuracy outcomes, recruited women recalled for assessment at mammography screening, and included a reference standard. Subgroup analysis was performed over lesion characteristics. We provided pooled accuracy estimates and differences between tests using a quadrivariate model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included ten studies that reported specificity and sensitivity. One study included 7060 women while the remaining included between 52 and 738 women. DBT compared with DxMM showed a pooled difference for the sensitivity of 2% (95% CI 1%-3%) and a pooled difference for the specificity of 6% (95%CI 2%-11%). Restricting the analysis to the six studies that included women with microcalcification lesions gave similar results. In the context of a prevalence of 21% of breast cancer (BC) in recalled women, DBT probably detects 4 (95% CI 2-6) more BC cases and has 47 (95%CI 16-87) fewer false-positive results per 1000 assessments. The certainty of the evidence was moderate due to risk of bias. The evidence in the assessment of screen-recalled findings with DBT is sparse and of moderate certainty. DBT probably has higher sensitivity and specificity than DxMM. Women, health care providers and policymakers might value as relevant the reduction of false-positive results and related fewer invasive diagnostic procedures with DBT, without missing BC cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic mammography projections (DxMM) have been traditionally used in the assessment of women recalled after a suspicious screening mammogram. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reduces the tissue overlap effect, thus improving image assessment. Some studies have suggested DBT might replace DxMM with at least equivalent performance.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the replacement of DxMM with DBT in women recalled at screening.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify diagnostic paired cohort studies or RCTs comparing DBT vs DxMM, published in English that: reported accuracy outcomes, recruited women recalled for assessment at mammography screening, and included a reference standard. Subgroup analysis was performed over lesion characteristics. We provided pooled accuracy estimates and differences between tests using a quadrivariate model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included ten studies that reported specificity and sensitivity. One study included 7060 women while the remaining included between 52 and 738 women. DBT compared with DxMM showed a pooled difference for the sensitivity of 2% (95% CI 1%-3%) and a pooled difference for the specificity of 6% (95%CI 2%-11%). Restricting the analysis to the six studies that included women with microcalcification lesions gave similar results. In the context of a prevalence of 21% of breast cancer (BC) in recalled women, DBT probably detects 4 (95% CI 2-6) more BC cases and has 47 (95%CI 16-87) fewer false-positive results per 1000 assessments. The certainty of the evidence was moderate due to risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
The evidence in the assessment of screen-recalled findings with DBT is sparse and of moderate certainty. DBT probably has higher sensitivity and specificity than DxMM. Women, health care providers and policymakers might value as relevant the reduction of false-positive results and related fewer invasive diagnostic procedures with DBT, without missing BC cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33675147
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3803
pmc: PMC7982617
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2191-2204Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Acta Radiol. 2018 Jul;59(7):782-788
pubmed: 28929783
BMJ. 2015 Oct 06;351:h4901
pubmed: 26442924
Breast Care (Basel). 2017 May;12(2):92-97
pubmed: 28559765
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20;171(4):273-280
pubmed: 31330534
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018 Aug;18(8):785-791
pubmed: 29847744
Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1058):20150735
pubmed: 26559441
Psychooncology. 2005 Nov;14(11):917-38
pubmed: 15786514
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan;200(1):226-31
pubmed: 23255766
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Sep;189(3):616-23
pubmed: 17715109
Cancer. 2020 Jul 1;126(13):2971-2979
pubmed: 32390151
Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):697-706
pubmed: 26176654
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Sep 1;110(9):942-949
pubmed: 30107542
BMJ. 2008 May 17;336(7653):1106-10
pubmed: 18483053
Eur Radiol. 2012 Mar;22(3):539-44
pubmed: 21987214
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 May;27(5):1410-1421
pubmed: 27487844
Clin Radiol. 2012 Oct;67(10):976-81
pubmed: 22625656
Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr;30(4):2058-2071
pubmed: 31900699
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Feb;200(2):291-8
pubmed: 23345348
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 6;9(1):1459
pubmed: 30728394
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 7;172(1):46-56
pubmed: 31766052
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):47-56
pubmed: 23297332
Clin Radiol. 2017 Jan;72(1):95.e9-95.e15
pubmed: 27737763
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jun 11;108(11):2205-40
pubmed: 23744281
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 May;133(1):267-71
pubmed: 22270938
Radiology. 2019 May;291(2):310-317
pubmed: 30888932
Eur Radiol. 2016 Aug;26(8):2520-8
pubmed: 26560729