Wang Jing, Zheng Senshuang, Ding Lanjun, Liang Xuan, Wang Yuan, Greuter Marcel J W, de Bock Geertruida H, Lu Wenli
Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713AM Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, 22 Qixiangtai Street, Heping District, Tianjin 300070, China.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Nov 21;10(11):985. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10110985.
In Asian countries, ultrasound has been proposed as a possible alternative for mammography in breast cancer screening because of its superiority in dense breasts, accessibility and low costs. This research aimed to meta-analyze the evidence for the diagnostic performance of ultrasound compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in Asian women. PubMed, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for studies that concurrently compared mammography and ultrasound in 2000-2019. Data extraction and risk of bias were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity. Bivariate random models were used to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In total, 4424 studies were identified of which six studies met the inclusion criteria with a sample size of 124,425 women. The pooled mean prevalence of the included studies was 3.7‱ (range: 1.2-5.7‱). The pooled sensitivity of mammography was significantly higher than that of ultrasound (0.81 [95% CI 0.71-0.88] versus 0.65 [95% CI 0.58-0.72], = 0.03), but no significant differences were found in specificity (0.98 [95% CI: 0.94-1.00] versus 0.99 [95% CI: 0.97-1.00], = 0.65). In conclusion, based on the currently available data on sensitivity alone, there is no indication that ultrasound can replace mammography in breast cancer screening in Asian women.
在亚洲国家,由于超声在致密型乳腺、可及性和低成本方面具有优势,它已被提议作为乳腺癌筛查中乳腺X线摄影的一种可能替代方法。本研究旨在对超声与乳腺X线摄影在亚洲女性乳腺癌筛查诊断性能方面的证据进行荟萃分析。在PubMed、科学网和中国知网数据库中检索2000年至2019年同时比较乳腺X线摄影和超声的研究。根据系统评价和荟萃分析方案的首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明进行数据提取和偏倚风险评估。主要结局是敏感性和特异性。采用双变量随机模型生成诊断参数的合并估计值和95%置信区间(95%CI)。总共识别出4424项研究,其中6项研究符合纳入标准,样本量为124425名女性。纳入研究的合并平均患病率为3.7‱(范围:1.2 - 5.7‱)。乳腺X线摄影的合并敏感性显著高于超声(0.81[95%CI 0.71 - 0.88]对0.65[95%CI 0.58 - 0.72],P = 0.03),但在特异性方面未发现显著差异(0.98[95%CI:0.94 - 1.00]对0.99[95%CI:0.97 - 1.00],P = 0.65)。总之,仅基于目前关于敏感性的现有数据,没有迹象表明超声可以在亚洲女性乳腺癌筛查中取代乳腺X线摄影。