谷歌浏览器插件
订阅小程序
在清言上使用

Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Negative Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Radiology(2023)

引用 19|浏览15
暂无评分
摘要
Background: The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined.Purpose: To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings.Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402).Results: Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; P < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; P < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; P < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assess-ment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities.Conclusion: The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer.(c) RSNA, 2023
更多
查看译文
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要