Song Soo Yeon, Park Boyoung, Hong Seri, Kim Min Jung, Lee Eun Hye, Jun Jae Kwan
National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Department of Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Breast Cancer. 2019 Jun;22(2):311-325. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24.
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.
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.
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.
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.
数字乳腺摄影(DM)已取代了屏-片乳腺摄影(SFM)。然而,关于DM和SFM用于乳腺癌筛查的性能指标比较结果并不一致。此外,根据设备类型比较筛查乳腺摄影性能的研究汇总结果随时间而变化。因此,本研究旨在使用最近发表的数据比较DM和SFM的性能。
检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,查找截至2018年发表的比较DM和SFM性能的配对研究、队列研究和随机对照试验。纳入所有比较DM和SFM在40岁及以上无症状、平均风险女性中诊断准确性的研究。两名评价者独立评估研究质量并提取数据。
荟萃分析纳入了13项研究。合并敏感度(DM,0.76[95%置信区间{CI},0.70 - 0.81];SFM,0.76[95%CI,0.70 - 0.81])、特异度(DM,0.96[95%CI,0.94 - 0.97];SFM,0.97[95%CI,0.94 - 0.98])以及受试者工作特征曲线下面积(DM,0.94[95%CI,0.92 - 0.96];SFM,0.92[95%CI,0.89 - 0.94])在DM和SFM中相似。汇总的筛查性能指标强化了全视野DM(一种更先进的乳腺摄影类型)比SFM具有更高的准确性。DM的优势在50岁及以上女性中似乎更大。在合并敏感度、特异度和总体诊断准确性估计值的研究中存在高度异质性。按研究设计(前瞻性或回顾性)分层并剔除随访期为2年或更长时间的研究后,总体诊断准确性估计值变得同质。
DM的乳腺癌筛查性能与SFM相似。DM的诊断性能取决于研究设计,并且在性能方面,与计算机X线摄影系统不同,全视野DM优于SFM。