数字乳腺断层扫描用于诊断乳房致密且有其他乳腺癌风险因素的女性的乳腺癌:系统综述

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Breast Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2024.103767
Smriti Raichand , Vendula Blaya-Novakova , Slavica Berber , Ann Livingstone , Naomi Noguchi , Nehmat Houssami
{"title":"数字乳腺断层扫描用于诊断乳房致密且有其他乳腺癌风险因素的女性的乳腺癌:系统综述","authors":"Smriti Raichand ,&nbsp;Vendula Blaya-Novakova ,&nbsp;Slavica Berber ,&nbsp;Ann Livingstone ,&nbsp;Naomi Noguchi ,&nbsp;Nehmat Houssami","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %–81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests.</p></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><p>PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"77 ","pages":"Article 103767"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000985/pdfft?md5=80d16eef5e28cdec676635413a5f5cef&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624000985-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Smriti Raichand ,&nbsp;Vendula Blaya-Novakova ,&nbsp;Slavica Berber ,&nbsp;Ann Livingstone ,&nbsp;Naomi Noguchi ,&nbsp;Nehmat Houssami\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103767\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %–81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests.</p></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><p>PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast\",\"volume\":\"77 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103767\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000985/pdfft?md5=80d16eef5e28cdec676635413a5f5cef&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624000985-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000985\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000985","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)可提高人群筛查的灵敏度。然而,目前有关 DBT 在乳腺癌高危患者中的表现的证据还很有限。本系统性综述比较了DBT、数字乳腺X光摄影术(DM)和超声波对乳房致密且有其他风险因素的女性进行乳腺癌检测的临床有效性和成本效益。方法通过OvidSP检索了Medline、Embase和循证医学综述,以确定2010年至2023年8月21日的文献。研究筛选、数据提取和质量评估(使用 QUADAS-2 和 CHEERS)均一式两份。结果26项研究符合预先规定的纳入标准。对于有乳腺症状或因筛查发现而重新接受检查的女性(19 项研究),DBT 可能比 DM 更准确。例如,在有症状的妇女中,DBT + DM 的灵敏度介于 82.8 % 到 92.5 % 之间,而乳腺 X 光检查(DM/合成图像)的灵敏度为 56.8 % 到 81.3 %。然而,由于参与者的选择,大多数研究的偏倚风险较高。结论 在乳房致密且有乳腺癌额外风险因素的女性中,与其他成像方式相比,DBT的准确性证据有限,尤其是在有乳腺癌个人或家族病史的女性中。未来对这一人群的研究应考虑对成像方式进行头对头比较,以确定这些成像检查的相对有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review

Introduction

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively.

Results

Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %–81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited.

Conclusions

In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.

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
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
期刊最新文献
Inequality in breast cancer: Global statistics from 2022 to 2050 A patient-led survey on information and communication needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer in Ireland and Northern Ireland (CTRIAL-IE 23–05) Editorial Board Factors associated with breast lymphedema after adjuvant radiation therapy in women undergoing breast conservation therapy Treatment of oligometastatic breast cancer: The role of patient selection
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1