PloS one · 2025
Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis on screening performance and interval cancer rates compared to digital mammography: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Xuewen, Yang Ting, Yao Juan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone, digital mammography (DM) plus DBT, and synthesized mammography (SM) plus DBT, in comparison to DM in breast cancer screening, remains a topic of ongoing debate. The effectiveness of these modalities in reducing interval cancer rates (ICR) is particularly contentious.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database of data was searched for articles published until July 2024. Initially, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT (DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT) and DM were estimated. Additionally, the sensitivity of breast cancer screening and ICR for DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT compared to DM. The characteristics of interval breast cancer were compared with those screening BC, alongside differences across various screening methods.
RESULTS: Eleven studies comparing DBT and DM were included. The sensitivity of DBT was higher than that of DM, with rates of 86% (95%CI: 81, 90) and 80% (95%CI: 76, 84), respectively. The specificities of both modalities were similar, recorded at 96% (95%CI: 95, 98) and 96% (95%CI: 95, 97), respectively. In comparison to DM, the screening sensitivities of DBT, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT were increased by 4.33% (95% CI: 1.52, 7.13), 6.29% (95% CI: 2.55, 10.03), and 5.22% (95% CI: 1.35, 9.10), respectively; however, the difference in the ICR was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: DBT offers advantages in enhancing the sensitivity of breast cancer screening; however, its impact on ICR remains uncertain. Consequently, further research is necessary to comprehensively evaluate both the effectiveness of screening and the potential risks associated with DBT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database of data was searched for articles published until July 2024. Initially, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT (DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT) and DM were estimated. Additionally, the sensitivity of breast cancer screening and ICR for DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT compared to DM. The characteristics of interval breast cancer were compared with those screening BC, alongside differences across various screening methods.
RESULTS: Eleven studies comparing DBT and DM were included. The sensitivity of DBT was higher than that of DM, with rates of 86% (95%CI: 81, 90) and 80% (95%CI: 76, 84), respectively. The specificities of both modalities were similar, recorded at 96% (95%CI: 95, 98) and 96% (95%CI: 95, 97), respectively. In comparison to DM, the screening sensitivities of DBT, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT were increased by 4.33% (95% CI: 1.52, 7.13), 6.29% (95% CI: 2.55, 10.03), and 5.22% (95% CI: 1.35, 9.10), respectively; however, the difference in the ICR was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: DBT offers advantages in enhancing the sensitivity of breast cancer screening; however, its impact on ICR remains uncertain. Consequently, further research is necessary to comprehensively evaluate both the effectiveness of screening and the potential risks associated with DBT.