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.

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

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 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 &lt; .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1,000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49–8.37; P &lt; .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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document