Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 164 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seong Jong Yun ◽  
Chang-Woo Ryu ◽  
Sun Jung Rhee ◽  
Jung Kyu Ryu ◽  
Ji Young Oh
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis

scholarly journals Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mostafa Alabousi ◽  
Akshay Wadera ◽  
Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita ◽  
Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa ◽  
Jean-Paul Salameh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis

Abstract Background To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), combined DBT and synthetic 2 D-mammography (S2D), and DM alone. Methods MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was utilized to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Forty-two studies reporting on 2,606,296 patients (13,003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1,000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI]=5.62–7.14; P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1,000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49–8.37; P < .001) compared to DM alone (4.68 per 1,000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28–5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1,000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97–5.12, P = .003), and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1,000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43–7.09; P < .001) compared to DM alone (3.42 per 1,000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02–3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3%, 95% CI = 37.4%–60.4%, P < .001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0–12.0; P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0–23.0; P < .001), while no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0%–8.0%; P = .75) compared to DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0%–8.0%). Conclusion Our findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 119-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janie M. Lee ◽  
Savannah C. Partridge ◽  
Geraldine J. Liao ◽  
Daniel S. Hippe ◽  
Adrienne E. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Breast Ultrasound ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Double Reading ◽  
Automated Breast Ultrasound

scholarly journals Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography

Radiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 297 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-553
Author(s):  
Samantha P. Zuckerman ◽  
Brian L. Sprague ◽  
Donald L. Weaver ◽  
Sally D. Herschorn ◽  
Emily F. Conant
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document