Mostafa Alabousi1, Akshay Wadera1, Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita2, Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa3, Jean-Paul Salameh4, Alex Pozdnyakov5, Nanxi Zha1, Lucy Samoilov1, Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi1, Behnam Sadeghirad6, Vivianne Freitas7, Matthew Df McInnes8, Abdullah Alabousi9. 1. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Faculty of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 7. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Radiology and Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 9. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was 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 mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT 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 used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-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 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was 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 mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT 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 used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-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 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Taghreed I Alshafeiy; Antoine Wadih; Brandi T Nicholson; Carrie M Rochman; Heather R Peppard; James T Patrie; Jennifer A Harvey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Tone Hovda; Åsne S Holen; Christoph I Lee; Judy Albertsen; Hilde Bjørndal; Siri H B Brandal; Randi Gullien; Jon Lømo; Daehoon Park; Linda Romundstad; Pål Suhrke; Einar Vigeland; Per Skaane Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nila H Alsheik; Firas Dabbous; Scott K Pohlman; Kathleen M Troeger; Richard E Gliklich; Gregory M Donadio; Zhaohui Su; Vandana Menon; Emily F Conant Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen Gc Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Hema Purushothaman; Celia Strudley; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Amana L Akhtar; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nina Ditsch; Achim Wöcke; Michael Untch; Christian Jackisch; Ute-Susann Albert; Maggie Banys-Paluchowski; Ingo Bauerfeind; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Wilfried Budach; Peter Dall; Eva Maria Fallenberg; Peter A Fasching; Tanja N Fehm; Michael Friedrich; Bernd Gerber; Oleg Gluz; Nadia Harbeck; Jörg Heil; Jens Huober; Hans H Kreipe; David Krug; Thorsten Kühn; Sherko Kümmel; Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke; Sibylle Loibl; Diana Lüftner; Michael Patrick Lux; Nicolai Maass; Christoph Mundhenke; Ulrike Nitz; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Toralf Reimer; Kerstin Rhiem; Achim Rody; Marcus Schmidt; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; Hans-Peter Sinn; Christine Solbach; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Isabell Witzel; Volkmar Müller; Wolfgang Janni; Marc Thill Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 2.268