scholarly journals Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Shengfeng Wang ◽  
Liwen Zhang ◽  
Chao Sheng ◽  
Fengju Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measures ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Global Profile ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background To provide a global profile of supplemental ultrasonography (US) screening after mammography (MAM) screening or primary US screening for breast cancers.Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Wed of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for supplemental or primary US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), and proportions of invasive cancers (ProIC) or node-positive cancers (ProNPC) among screening-detected cancers.Results Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 supplemental US screening studies and 11 joint screening studies in which both MAM and US were used as primary screening methods. Meta-analyses revealed that supplemental US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82% to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 94% (95% CIs: 88% to 97%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 2.9/1000 (95%CIs: 1.8/1000 to 3.9/1000), RR of 8.6% (95%CIs: 4.8% to 13.5%), BR of 3.9% (95%CIs: 2.5% to 5.5%), ProICof 73.9% (95%CIs: 49.0% to 93.7%), and ProNPC of 72.6% (95%CIs: 51.9% to 90.0%). Compared with primary MAM screening, primary US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.2% (95%CIs:0.4% to 1.9%), P =0.004] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [20.2% (95%CIs: 7.2% to 33.1%), P = 0.002]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNPC.Conclusions Supplemental US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM, while primary US screening performances are comparable to those of primary MAM screening, but with a higher recall rate and a higher detection rate for invasive cancers.

scholarly journals Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Shengfeng Wang ◽  
Liwen Zhang ◽  
Chao Sheng ◽  
Fengju Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental US screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM).Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Wed of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for supplemental or primary US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), and proportions of invasive cancers (ProIC) or node-positive cancers (ProNPC) among screening-detected cancers.Results Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which supplemental US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both MAM and US were used as primary screening methods. Meta-analyses revealed that supplemental US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82% to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 94% (95% CIs: 88% to 97%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 2.9/1000 (95%CIs: 1.8/1000 to 3.9/1000), RR of 8.6% (95%CIs: 4.8% to 13.5%), BR of 3.9% (95%CIs: 2.5% to 5.5%), ProICof 73.9% (95%CIs: 49.0% to 93.7%), and ProNPC of 72.6% (95%CIs: 51.9% to 90.0%). Compared with primary MAM screening, primary US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.2% (95%CIs:0.4% to 1.9%), P =0.004] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [20.2% (95%CIs: 7.2% to 33.1%), P = 0.002]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNPC.Conclusions Supplemental US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM, while primary US screening would be considered as comparable to primary MAM screening in certain subgroup of women, but with a higher recall rate and a higher detection rate for invasive cancers.

scholarly journals Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Shengfeng Wang ◽  
Liwen Zhang ◽  
Chao Sheng ◽  
Fengju Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Biopsy Rate

Abstract Background To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental US screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM). Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Wed of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for supplemental or primary US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), and proportions of invasive cancers (ProIC) or node-negative invasive cancers (ProNNIC) among screening-detected cancers. Results Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which supplemental US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both MAM and US were used as primary screening methods. Meta-analyses revealed that supplemental US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82% to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 94% (95% CIs: 88% to 97%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 2.9/1000 (95%CIs: 1.8/1000 to 3.9/1000), RR of 8.6% (95%CIs: 4.8% to 13.5%), BR of 3.9% (95%CIs: 2.5% to 5.5%), ProIC of 73.9% (95%CIs: 49.0% to 93.7%), and ProNNIC of 72.6% (95%CIs: 51.9% to 90.0%). Compared with primary MAM screening, primary US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.2% (95%CIs:0.4% to 1.9%), P =0.003] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [20.8% (95%CIs: 14.6% to 27.0%), P < 0.001]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNNIC. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that supplemental US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM. Primary US screening has shown to be comparable to primary MAM screening in women with dense breasts in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but with higher recall rates and higher detection rates for invasive cancers.

scholarly journals Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Shengfeng Wang ◽  
Liwen Zhang ◽  
Chao Sheng ◽  
Fengju Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Biopsy Rate

Abstract Background To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (P-US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental ultrasound (S-US) screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM). Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for P-US or S-US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), proportion of invasive cancers among screening-detected cancers (ProIC), and proportion of node-negative cancers among screening-detected invasive cancers (ProNNIC). Results Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which S-US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both primary MAM (P-MAM) and P-US were used. Meta-analyses revealed that S-US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82% to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 93% (95% CIs: 89% to 96%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 3.0/1000 (95%CIs: 1.8/1000 to 4.6/1000), RR of 8.8% (95%CIs: 5.0% to 13.4%), BR of 3.9% (95%CIs: 2.7% to 5.4%), ProIC of 73.9% (95%CIs: 49.0% to 93.7%), and ProNNIC of 70.9% (95%CIs: 46.0% to 91.6%). Compared with P-MAM screening, P-US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.5% (95%CIs:0.6% to 2.3%), P =0.001] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [16.3% (95%CIs: 10.6% to 22.1%), P < 0.001]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNNIC. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that S-US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM. P-US screening has shown to be comparable to P-MAM screening in women with dense breasts in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but with higher recall rates and higher detection rates for invasive cancers.

Genetic parkinsonisms and cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Sturchio ◽  
Alok K. Dwivedi ◽  
Joaquin A. Vizcarra ◽  
Martina Chirra ◽  
Elizabeth G. Keeling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Head And Neck Cancers ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Asymptomatic Carriers ◽  
Skin Cancers ◽  
Prostate Cancers ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Genetic Contributions ◽  
Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers

AbstractGenes associated with parkinsonism may also be implicated in carcinogenesis, but their interplay remains unclear. We systematically reviewed studies (PubMed 1967–2019) reporting gene variants associated with both parkinsonism and cancer. Somatic variants were examined in cancer samples, whereas germline variants were examined in cancer patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic (carriers) genetic parkinsonisms. Pooled proportions were calculated with random-effects meta-analyses. Out of 9,967 eligible articles, 60 were included. Of the 28 genetic variants associated with parkinsonism, six were also associated with cancer. In cancer samples, SNCA was predominantly associated with gastrointestinal cancers, UCHL1 with breast cancer, and PRKN with head-and-neck cancers. In asymptomatic carriers, LRRK2 was predominantly associated with gastrointestinal and prostate cancers, PRKN with prostate and genitourinary tract cancers, GBA with sarcoma, and 22q11.2 deletion with leukemia. In symptomatic genetic parkinsonism, LRRK2 was associated with nonmelanoma skin cancers and breast cancers, and PRKN with head-and-neck cancers. Cancer was more often manifested in genetic parkinsonisms compared to asymptomatic carriers. These results suggest that intraindividual genetic contributions may modify the co-occurrence of cancer and neurodegeneration.

scholarly journals Diagnostic value of Telomerase Activity in patients with Bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Peng ◽  
Lujia He ◽  
ZhengJu Ren ◽  
Hong De Cao ◽  
Jinze Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Telomerase Activity ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background This article aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of telomerase activity (TA) in bladder cancer (BC) by meta-analysis of diagnostic tests. Methods We conducted a systematic search of articles published on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to June 1, 2019.Stata 15 and Review Manager 5.3 were used for calculation and statistical analyses. Results We use the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR,NLR),diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% confidengce intervals (CIs) to evaluate the diagnostic value of TA for BC. 22 studies were included in the meta- analyses, with a total of 2867 individuals. The pooled parameters are calculated from all studies: sensitivity of 0.79(95%CI:0.72-0.84), specificity of 0.91(95%CI:0.87-0.94), PLR of 8.91(95%CI:5.91-13.43),NLR of 0.24(95%CI:0.15-0.37), DOR of 37.90(95%CI:23.32-61.59), AUC of 0.92(95%CI:0.90-0.94). We also conducted subgroup based on different stages and grades. Results from subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in TA during the high and low stages BC, but low-grade tumors have lower TA than high-grade tumors. Conclusions For the diagnosis of BC, the overall diagnostic value of TA is high, and is expected to be an alternative to cystoscopy for different staging and grading. The tumor also has a very good diagnostic value.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculous pericarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257220
Author(s):  
Guocan Yu ◽  
Fangming Zhong ◽  
Yanqin Shen ◽  
Hong Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Diagnostic Efficacy ◽  
Tuberculous Pericarditis ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Study Inclusion ◽  
Composite Reference Standard

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous pericarditis (TBP). Methods We searched relevant databases for Xpert MTB/RIF for TBP diagnosis until April 2021 and screened eligible studies for study inclusion. We evaluated the effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF when the composite reference standard (CRS) and mycobacterial culture were the gold standards, respectively. We performed meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model, and when the heterogeneity was obvious, the source of heterogeneity was further discussed. Results We included seven independent studies comparing Xpert MTB/RIF with the CRS and six studies comparing it with culture. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of Xpert MTB/RIF were 65% (95% confidence interval, 59–72%), 99% (97–100%), and 0.99 (0.97–0.99) as compared with the CRS, respectively, and 75% (53–88%), 99% (90–100%), and 0.94 (0.92–0.96) as compared with culture, respectively. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies when CRS was the gold standard, whereas heterogeneity was evident when culture was the gold standard. Conclusions The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing TBP was moderate and the specificity was good; thus, Xpert MTB/RIF can be used in the initial diagnosis of TBP.

Add-on bone scintigraphy after negative radiological skeletal survey for the diagnosis of skeletal injury in children suspected of physical abuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-319065
Author(s):  
Flora Blangis ◽  
Melissa Taylor ◽  
Catherine Adamsbaum ◽  
Anne Devillers ◽  
Christèle Gras-Le Guen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Abuse ◽  
Bone Scintigraphy ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Skeletal Survey ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Skeletal Injury ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective(s)To systematically assess the extent to which bone scintigraphy (BS) could improve the detection rate of skeletal injury in children suspected of physical abuse with an initial negative radiological skeletal survey (RSS).Study designWe searched MEDLINE and Web of Science for series of ≥20 children suspected of physical abuse who underwent RSS and add-on BS. We assessed the risk of bias and the heterogeneity and performed random-effects meta-analyses.ResultsAfter screening 1140 unique search results, we reviewed 51 full-text articles, and included 7 studies (783 children, mostly ≤3 years old). All studies were of either high or unclear risk of bias. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in meta-analyses. The summary detection rate of skeletal injury with RSS alone was 52% (95% CI 37 to 68). The summary absolute increase in detection rate with add-on BS was 10 percentage points (95% CI 6 to 15); the summary relative detection rate was 1.19 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.25); the summary number of children with a negative RSS who needed to undergo a BS to detect one additional child with skeletal injury (number needed to test) was 3 (95% CI 2 to 7).ConclusionsFrom the available evidence, add-on BS in young children suspected of physical abuse with a negative RSS might allow for a clinically significant improvement of the detection rate of children with skeletal injury, for a limited number of BS procedures required. The quality of the reviewed evidence was low, pointing to the need for high-quality studies in this field.

scholarly journals Comparison of Mammography and Ultrasonography for Early Detection of Breast Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1450-1455
Author(s):  
Samina Mahmood ◽  
M Nawaz Anjum ◽  
Faiza Farooq ◽  
S.Amir Gilani ◽  
Mehreen Fatima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Major Purpose ◽  
High Recall ◽  
Dense Breasts ◽  
High Recall Rate

Aim: This systematic review is specifically aimed to compare mammography and ultrasonography in early detection of breast cancer. For this systematic review, major purpose is to compare both screening methods and also analyze the performance of supplemental ultrasonography for early detection of breast cancer. Methodology: For this systematic review, total 23 studies are included which follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic articles from year 2007 to from year 2017 on PUB Med, online Willey library, and Science Direct site were searched by using keywords related to sonographic and mammography imaging for breast cancer. Results: Out of 23 studies, 12 studies are conducted on women with dense breasts. Twenty studies performed their imaging with hand held ultrasound (HHUS). Out of twenty-three studies, sixteen studies followed BI-RADS procedures. In eleven studies that used joint methods, it was observed that mammography (MAM) has 65% whereas ultrasound (US) has 68% efficiency for early detection of breast cancer. 88% area under a cover (AUCs) among MAM and 98% among US imaging was observed. No major difference was found in sensitivity and specificity of both techniques. Conclusion: Study concludes that Ultrasound is more efficient to diagnose factors suggestive of breast cancer that cannot be detected on mammography. It also has the potential to evaluate cancer among dense breast women but unfortunately in some cases, it may cause a high recall rate. Keywords: Breast, Cancer, Mammography, Ultrasonography, Screening.

Use of micronucleus assays for the prediction and detection of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1318-1328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahereh Setayesh ◽  
Michael Kundi ◽  
Armen Nersesyan ◽  
Helga Stopper ◽  
Michael Fenech ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Pap Tests ◽  
Cervical Cells ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Cervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most common cancer in women; the survival rates depend strongly on its early detection. The Pap test is the most frequently used diagnostic tool, but due to its limited sensitivity/specificity, additional screening tests are needed. Therefore, we evaluated the use of micronucleus (MN) assays with cervical cells for the prediction and diagnosis of CC. MN reflects structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. A search was performed in Pubmed, Scopus, Thomson ISI and Google Scholar. Subsequently, meta-analyses were performed for different grades of abnormal findings in smears and biopsies from patients which were diagnosed with CC. Results of 21 studies in which findings of MN experiments were compared with data from Pap tests show that higher MN frequencies were found in women with abnormal cells that are indicative for increased cancer risks. MN frequency ratios increased in the order inflammation (2.1) &lt; ASC-US and ASC-H (3.3) &lt; LGSIL (4.4) &lt; HGSIL (8.4). Furthermore, results are available from 17 investigations in which MN were scored in smears from patients with neoplasia. MN rates increased with the degree of neoplasia [CIN 1 (4.6) &lt; CIN 2 (6.5) and CIN 3 (10.8)] and were significantly higher (8.8) in CC patients. Our meta-analysis indicates that the MN assay, which is easy to perform in combination with Pap tests, may be useful for the detection/prediction of CC. However, standardization (including definition of the optimal cell numbers and stains) and further validation is necessary before the MN test can be implemented in routine screening.

scholarly journals Cardiac monitoring for detection of atrial fibrillation after TIA: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Korompoki ◽  
Angela Del Giudice ◽  
Steffi Hillmann ◽  
Uwe Malzahn ◽  
David J Gladstone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiac Monitoring ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Ischemic Attack ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation Detection

Background and purpose The detection rate of atrial fibrillation has not been studied specifically in transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients although extrapolation from ischemic stroke may be inadequate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the rate of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation using different methods of ECG monitoring in TIA. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed following a pre-specified protocol the PRISMA statement. Prospective observational studies and randomized controlled trials were considered that included TIA patients who underwent cardiac monitoring for >12 h. Primary outcome was frequency of detection of atrial fibrillation ≥30 s. Analyses of subgroups and of duration and type of monitoring were performed. Results Seventeen studies enrolling 1163 patients were included. The pooled atrial fibrillation detection rate for all methods was 4% (95% CI: 2–7%). Yield of monitoring was higher in selected (higher age, more extensive testing for arrhythmias before enrolment, or presumed cardioembolic/cryptogenic cause) than in unselected cohorts (7% vs 3%). Pooled mean atrial fibrillation detection rates rose with duration of monitoring: 4% (24 h), 5% (24 h to 7 days) and 6% (>7 days), respectively. Yield of non-invasive was significantly lower than that of invasive monitoring (4% vs. 11%). Significant heterogeneity was observed among studies (I2=60.61%). Conclusion This first meta-analysis of atrial fibrillation detection in TIA patients finds a lower atrial fibrillation detection rate in TIA than reported for IS and TIA cohorts in previous meta-analyses. Prospective studies are needed to determine actual prevalence of atrial fibrillation and optimal diagnostic procedure for atrial fibrillation detection in TIA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document