Li Tong, Isautier Jennifer, Lee Janie M, Marinovich M Luke, Houssami Nehmat
The Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Clin Breast Cancer. 2025 Feb;25(2):e103-e112. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.09.013. Epub 2024 Sep 21.
There is limited evidence on the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in populations at increased risk of breast cancer. Our objective was to systematically review evidence on the performance of DBT versus digital mammography (DM) in women with a family history of breast cancer (FHBC).
We searched 5 databases (2011-January 2024) for studies comparing DBT and DM in women with a FHBC that reported any measure of cancer detection, recall, sensitivity and specificity. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C.
Five (4 screening, 1 diagnostic) studies were included (total 3089 DBT, 3024 DM) with most (4/5) being prospective including 1 RCT. All studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias or applicability concern. Four screening studies reported recall rate (range: DBT: 2.7%-4.5%, DM: 2.8%-11.5%) with 3 reporting DBT had lower rates than DM. Cancer detection rates (CDR) were reported in the same studies (DBT: 5.1-11.6 per 1000, DM: 3.8-8.3); 3 reported higher CDR for DBT (vs. DM), and 1 reported same CDR for both. Compared with DM, higher values for sensitivity, specificity and PPV for DBT were reported in 2 studies.
This review provides early evidence that DBT may outperform DM for screening women with a FHBC. Our findings support further evaluation of DBT in this population. However, summarized findings were based on few studies and participants, and high-quality studies with improved methodology are needed to address biases identified in our review.
关于数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)在乳腺癌风险增加人群中的表现,证据有限。我们的目的是系统回顾关于DBT与数字乳腺钼靶摄影(DM)在有乳腺癌家族史(FHBC)女性中的表现的证据。
我们检索了5个数据库(2011年 - 2024年1月),以查找比较DBT和DM在有FHBC女性中的研究,这些研究报告了任何癌症检测、召回、敏感性和特异性的测量指标。研究结果采用描述性和叙述性方法呈现。使用QUADAS - 2/C评估偏倚风险。
纳入了5项研究(4项筛查,1项诊断)(共3089例DBT,3024例DM),大多数(4/5)为前瞻性研究,包括1项随机对照试验。所有研究均被评估为存在高偏倚风险或适用性问题。4项筛查研究报告了召回率(范围:DBT:2.7% - 4.5%,DM:2.8% - 11.5%),其中3项报告DBT的召回率低于DM。这些研究还报告了癌症检测率(CDR)(DBT:每1000人中有5.1 - 11.6例,DM:每1000人中有3.8 - 8.3例);3项报告DBT的CDR高于DM,1项报告两者的CDR相同。2项研究报告与DM相比,DBT的敏感性、特异性和阳性预测值更高。
本综述提供了早期证据,表明DBT在筛查有FHBC的女性方面可能优于DM。我们的研究结果支持在该人群中进一步评估DBT。然而,总结的研究结果基于少数研究和参与者,需要采用改进方法的高质量研究来解决我们综述中确定的偏倚问题。