Suppr超能文献

五种不同成像方式在乳腺筛查召回女性评估中的诊断效能——一项系统评价与荟萃分析

Diagnostic Efficacy of Five Different Imaging Modalities in the Assessment of Women Recalled at Breast Screening-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Akwo Judith, Hadadi Ibrahim, Ekpo Ernest

机构信息

Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.

Department of Radiological Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Cancers (Basel). 2024 Oct 17;16(20):3505. doi: 10.3390/cancers16203505.

Abstract

There are variations in the assessment pathways for women recalled at screening, and the imaging assessment pathway with the best diagnostic outcome is poorly understood. This paper examines the efficacy of five imaging modalities for the assessment of screen-recalled breast lesions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) strategy was employed to identify studies that assessed the efficacy of imaging modalities in the assessment of lesions recalled at screening from the following eight databases: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, CINAHL, and Global Health. Search terms included "Breast assessment" AND "Diagnostic Workup" OR "Mammography" AND "Digital Breast tomosynthesis" AND "contrast enhanced mammography and Magnetic Resonance imaging" AND "breast ultrasound". Studies that examined the performance of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), handheld ultrasound (HHUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screen-recalled lesions were reviewed. Meta-analyses of these studies were conducted using the MetaDisc 2.0 software package. Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and examined between one and three imaging modalities. Pooled results of each imaging modality demonstrated that CEM has the highest sensitivity (95; 95% CI: 90-97) followed by MRI (93; 95% CI: 88-96), DBT (91; 95% CI: 87-94), HHUS (90; 95% CI: 86-93), and DM (85; 95% CI: 78-90). The DBT demonstrated the highest specificity (85; 95% CI: 75-91) followed by DM (77; 95% CI: 66-85), CEM (73; 95% CI: 63-81), MRI (69; 95% CI: 55-81), and HHUS (65; 95% CI: 46-80). The CEM, MRI, DBT, and HHUS demonstrate excellent performance in correctly identifying and classifying cancer lesions referred for diagnostic work-up, but HHUS, MRI, and CEM have a more limited ability to discriminate benign lesions than DBT and DM.

摘要

在筛查中被召回的女性的评估途径存在差异,而具有最佳诊断结果的影像评估途径却鲜为人知。本文研究了五种影像检查方式对筛查召回的乳腺病变的评估效果。采用系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)策略,从以下八个数据库中识别评估影像检查方式对筛查召回病变评估效果的研究:医学索引数据库(Medline)、科学引文索引数据库(Web of Science)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、Scopus数据库、科学Direct数据库、美国国立医学图书馆生物医学期刊数据库(PubMed)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)和全球健康数据库。检索词包括“乳腺评估”以及“诊断检查”或“乳腺钼靶摄影”、“数字乳腺断层合成”、“对比增强乳腺钼靶摄影和磁共振成像”以及“乳腺超声”。对检查数字乳腺钼靶摄影(DM)、数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)、手持式超声(HHUS)、对比增强乳腺钼靶摄影(CEM)和磁共振成像(MRI)在筛查召回病变中的表现的研究进行了综述。使用MetaDisc 2.0软件包对这些研究进行了Meta分析。54项研究符合纳入标准,研究了一至三种影像检查方式。每种影像检查方式的汇总结果表明,CEM的敏感性最高(95;95%可信区间:90 - 97),其次是MRI(93;95%可信区间:88 - 96)、DBT(91;95%可信区间:87 - 94)、HHUS(90;95%可信区间:86 - 93)和DM(85;95%可信区间:78 - 9)。DBT的特异性最高(85;95%可信区间:75 - 91),其次是DM(77;95%可信区间:66 - 85)、CEM(73;95%可信区间:63 - 81)、MRI(69;95%可信区间:55 - 81)和HHUS(65;95%可信区间:46 - 80)。CEM、MRI、DBT和HHUS在正确识别和分类转诊进行诊断检查的癌症病变方面表现出色,但HHUS、MRI和CEM在鉴别良性病变方面的能力比DBT和DM更有限。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a9b/11505902/66313f6c76b8/cancers-16-03505-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验