Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:9
|
作者
Song, Soo Yeon [1 ]
Park, Boyoung [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Hong, Eri [1 ]
Kim, Min Jung [3 ]
Lee, Eun Hye [4 ]
Jun, Jae Kwan [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Natl Canc Ctr, Natl Canc Control Inst, 323 Ilsan Ro, Goyang 10408, South Korea
[2] Hanyang Univ, Coll Med, Dept Med, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Res Inst Radiol Sci, Dept Radiol,Severance Hosp, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Soonchunhyang Univ, Hosp Bucheon, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Bucheon, South Korea
[5] Natl Canc Ctr, Grad Sch Canc Sci & Policy, Goyang, South Korea
关键词
Breast neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Female; Mammography; Sensitivity and specificity; PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; FOLLOW-UP; IMPACT; TRANSITION; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Digital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.70-0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70-0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Conclusion: The breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.
引用
收藏
页码:311 / 325
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program
    Hambly, Niamh M.
    McNicholas, Michelle M.
    Phelan, Niall
    Hargaden, Gormlaith C.
    O'Doherty, Ann
    Flanagan, Fidelma L.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (04) : 1010 - 1018
  • [2] Is full-field digital mammography more accurate than screen-film mammography in overall population screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Souza, Fabiano H.
    Wendland, Eliana M.
    Rosa, Maria I.
    Polanczyk, Carisi A.
    BREAST, 2013, 22 (03): : 217 - 224
  • [3] Screen-film versus full-field digital mammography:: Comparison in breast cancer screening
    Sigfússon, BF
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2005, 46 (07) : 663 - 663
  • [4] Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Alabousi, Mostafa
    Wadera, Akshay
    Al-Ghita, Mohammed Kashif
    Al-Ghetaa, Rayeh Kashef
    Salameh, Jean-Paul
    Pozdnyakov, Alex
    Zha, Nanxi
    Samoilov, Lucy
    Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Freitas, Vivianne
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    Alabousi, Abdullah
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2021, 113 (06): : 680 - 690
  • [5] Studies Comparing Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Review
    Skaane, P.
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2009, 50 (01) : 3 - 14
  • [6] Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography of breast cancer
    Lewin, JM
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Hendrick, RE
    Moss, LJ
    Isaacs, PK
    Karellas, A
    Cutter, GR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2002, 179 (03) : 671 - 677
  • [7] Screen-film and digital mammography in the Finnish breast cancer screening programme: a randomised design
    不详
    EJC SUPPLEMENTS, 2006, 4 (02): : 57 - 57
  • [8] Characteristics of tumors detected by screen-film and digital mammography during breast cancer screening
    Caleffi, Maria M.
    Bedin, Ademar M.
    Duarte Filho, Dakir L.
    de Moraes Neto, Luis Antonio
    Ferreira, Clarissa M.
    Ribelro, Rodrigo Antonini
    Rosa, Danlela Dornelles
    Wendiand, Eliana M.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (15)
  • [9] SCREEN-FILM MAMMOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUE FOR BREAST-CANCER SCREENING
    STANTON, L
    DAY, JL
    VILLAFANA, T
    MILLER, CH
    LIGHTFOOT, DA
    RADIOLOGY, 1987, 163 (02) : 471 - 479
  • [10] Digital compared to screen-film mammography: breast cancer prognostic features in an organized screening program
    Prummel, Maegan V.
    Done, Susan J.
    Muradali, Derek
    Majpruz, Vicky
    Brown, Patrick
    Jiang, Hedy
    Shumak, Rene S.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Holloway, Claire M. B.
    Chiarelli, Anna M.
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2014, 147 (02) : 389 - 399