Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제22권8호
  • /
  • Pages.1240-1252
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detecting Breast Cancer in the Diagnostic Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Min Jung Ko (Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency) ;
  • Dong A Park (Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency) ;
  • Sung Hyun Kim (Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency) ;
  • Eun Sook Ko (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kyung Hwan Shin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Woosung Lim (Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Beom Seok Kwak (Department of Surgery, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital) ;
  • Jung Min Chang (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2020.10.10
  • 심사 : 2021.01.17
  • 발행 : 2021.08.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies. Results: Twenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Conclusion: Use of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) of Korea (NR-19-001-25).

참고문헌

  1. American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography. Acr.org Web site. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/Screen-Diag-Mammo.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed June 17, 2020 
  2. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227-236 
  3. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175 
  4. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013 
  5. Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Cohen MA. Finding early invasive breast cancers: a practical approach. Radiology 2008;248:61-76 
  6. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 2013;266:89-95 
  7. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 2012;262:61-68 
  8. Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110:942-949 
  9. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311:2499-2507 
  10. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fanto C, Ostillio L, et al. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1105-1113 
  11. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:616-623 
  12. Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, Henrichsen TL, Bendel EC, Brandt SR, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:291-298 
  13. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W172-W176 
  14. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-396 
  15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-560 
  16. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9 
  17. Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1188-1196 
  18. Basha MAA, Safwat HK, Alaa Eldin AM, Dawoud HA, Hassanin AM. The added value of digital breast tomosynthesis in improving diagnostic performance of BI-RADS categorization of mammographically indeterminate breast lesions. Insights Imaging 2020;11:26 
  19. You C, Zhang Y, Gu Y, Xiao Q, Liu G, Shen X, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 2020;27:47-53 
  20. Asbeutah AM, Karmani N, Asbeutah AA, Echreshzadeh YA, AlMajran AA, Al-Khalifah KH. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography for detection of breast cancer in Kuwaiti women. Med Princ Pract 2019;28:10-15 
  21. Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA, McCarthy AM, Lehman CD. Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. Eur Radiol 2019;29:477-484 
  22. Georgian-Smith D, Obuchowski NA, Lo JY, Brem RF, Baker JA, Fisher PR, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace full-field digital mammography? A multireader, multicase study of wide-angle tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:1393-1399 
  23. Li J, Zhang H, Jiang H, Guo X, Zhang Y, Qi D, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations: a comparison with full-field digital mammography. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2019;17:82-89 
  24. Mall S, Noakes J, Kossoff M, Lee W, McKessar M, Goy A, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic? Eur Radiol 2018;28:5182-5194 
  25. Ohashi R, Nagao M, Nakamura I, Okamoto T, Sakai S. Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 2018;25:590-596 
  26. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Hadjiiski L, Jeffries DO, Klein KA, Neal CH, et al. Characterization of breast masses in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammograms: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2017;24:1372-1379 
  27. Kim WH, Chang JM, Koo HR, Seo M, Bae MS, Lee J, et al. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Acta Radiol 2017;58:148-155 
  28. Krammer J, Stepniewski K, Kaiser CG, Brade J, Riffel P, Schoenberg SO, et al. Value of additional digital breast tomosynthesis for preoperative staging of breast cancer in dense breasts. Anticancer Res 2017;37:5255-5261 
  29. Bian T, Lin Q, Cui C, Li L, Qi C, Fei J, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a new diagnostic method for mass-like lesions in dense breasts. Breast J 2016;22:535-540 
  30. Elizalde A, Pina L, Etxano J, Slon P, Zalazar R, Caballeros M. Additional US or DBT after digital mammography: which one is the best combination? Acta Radiol 2016;57:13-18 
  31. Kamal R, Mansour S, ElMesidy D, Moussa K, Hussien A. Detection and diagnosis of breast lesions: performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance mammography. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2016;47:1159-1172 
  32. Seo M, Chang JM, Kim SA, Kim WH, Lim JH, Lee SH, et al. Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting: additional value and cancer detectability. J Breast Cancer 2016;19:438-446 
  33. Taha Ali TF, Magid AM, Tawab MA, El-Hariri MA, Abdel-Fattah ES. Potential impact of tomosynthesis on the detection and diagnosis of breast lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2016;47:351-361 
  34. Bansal GJ, Young P. Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20140855 
  35. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 2015;277:697-706 
  36. Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Stevanin C, Tagliafico G, Martino L, et al. Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 2015;25:9-14 
  37. Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ, Berclaz G, Ciriolo M, Buser K, et al. Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:226-231 
  38. Lei J, Yang P, Zhang L, Wang Y, Yang K. Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014;24:595-602 
  39. Alabousi M, Zha N, Salameh JP, Samoilov L, Sharifabadi AD, Pozdnyakov A, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020;30:2058-2071 
  40. Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53:524-529 
  41. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271:664-671 
  42. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses. Acsearch.acr.org Web site. http://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69495/Narrative/. Accessed June 17, 2020 
  43. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Evaluation of Nipple Discharge. Acsearch.acr.org Web site. http://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3099312/Narrative/. Accessed June 17, 2020 
  44. Peppard HR, Nicholson BE, Rochman CM, Merchant JK, Mayo RC 3rd, Harvey JA. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications. Radiographics 2015;35:975-990