Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer. Methods Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SR...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of ultrasound 2023-06, Vol.26 (2), p.355-367 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 367 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 355 |
| container_title | Journal of ultrasound |
| container_volume | 26 |
| creator | Tadesse, Getu Ferenji Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede |
| description | Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.
Methods
Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of MMG and US. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference.
Results
Analysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of MMG and US in detecting breast cancer were as follows: pooled sensitivity per-patient were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) respectively, The pooled specificities for detection of breast cancer using MMG, and US were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.91) respectively. AUC of MMG, and US were 0.8933 and 0.8310 respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity per-lesion was 76% (95% CI 0.62–0.86) and 82% (95% CI 0.66–0.91) for MMG and 94% (95% CI 0.87–0.97) and 84% (95% CI 0.74–0.91) for US.
Conclusions
The meta-analysis found that, US and MMG has similar diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer on per-patient basis after corrected threshold effect. However, on a per-lesion basis US was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy than MMG. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2769591015</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2823654573</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-de0f415a9d029f003fe6745b5f11cc62f8e9e01147d09d3075a2025cb93029853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi1ERUvhD3BAlrj0ktYfsb3uDfUDKlXiAmdr1hkvqeJ4sROq_fd1ugUqDj15LD_vO555CfnA2SlnzJyVlrXGNEyIpl6VauQrcsRXRjfGSv76WX1I3pZyx5iy0vA35FBqbTVr9REZLnvYjKlMvadbzCHlCKNHmgKNEGPaZNj-3FEYOzoPU4aS5lr2I11nhDJRv9D5nAItuzJhhMUo4-8e7x9FESdoYIRhV_ryjhwEGAq-fzqPyY_rq-8XX5vbb19uLj7fNl4aNTUdstByBbZjwgbGZEBtWrVWgXPvtQgrtMg4b03HbCfr6CCYUH5tZRWslDwmJ3vfbU6_ZiyTi33xOAwwYpqLE0ZbZTnjC_rpP_Quzbn-t1IrIbVqlZGVEnvK51RKxuC2uY-Qd44zt2Th9lm4moV7zMItoo9P1vM6YvdX8mf5FZB7oNSncYP5X-8XbB8ACsGUhw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2823654573</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji ; Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew ; Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</creator><creatorcontrib>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji ; Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew ; Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.
Methods
Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of MMG and US. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference.
Results
Analysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of MMG and US in detecting breast cancer were as follows: pooled sensitivity per-patient were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) respectively, The pooled specificities for detection of breast cancer using MMG, and US were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.91) respectively. AUC of MMG, and US were 0.8933 and 0.8310 respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity per-lesion was 76% (95% CI 0.62–0.86) and 82% (95% CI 0.66–0.91) for MMG and 94% (95% CI 0.87–0.97) and 84% (95% CI 0.74–0.91) for US.
Conclusions
The meta-analysis found that, US and MMG has similar diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer on per-patient basis after corrected threshold effect. However, on a per-lesion basis US was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy than MMG.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1876-7931</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1971-3495</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1876-7931</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36696046</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Diagnostic systems ; Female ; Humans ; Mammography ; Mammography - methods ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Review Paper ; Sensitivity ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Journal of ultrasound, 2023-06, Vol.26 (2), p.355-367</ispartof><rights>Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB) 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB).</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-de0f415a9d029f003fe6745b5f11cc62f8e9e01147d09d3075a2025cb93029853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-de0f415a9d029f003fe6745b5f11cc62f8e9e01147d09d3075a2025cb93029853</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36696046$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Journal of ultrasound</title><addtitle>J Ultrasound</addtitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound</addtitle><description>Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.
Methods
Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of MMG and US. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference.
Results
Analysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of MMG and US in detecting breast cancer were as follows: pooled sensitivity per-patient were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) respectively, The pooled specificities for detection of breast cancer using MMG, and US were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.91) respectively. AUC of MMG, and US were 0.8933 and 0.8310 respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity per-lesion was 76% (95% CI 0.62–0.86) and 82% (95% CI 0.66–0.91) for MMG and 94% (95% CI 0.87–0.97) and 84% (95% CI 0.74–0.91) for US.
Conclusions
The meta-analysis found that, US and MMG has similar diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer on per-patient basis after corrected threshold effect. However, on a per-lesion basis US was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy than MMG.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Review Paper</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1876-7931</issn><issn>1971-3495</issn><issn>1876-7931</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi1ERUvhD3BAlrj0ktYfsb3uDfUDKlXiAmdr1hkvqeJ4sROq_fd1ugUqDj15LD_vO555CfnA2SlnzJyVlrXGNEyIpl6VauQrcsRXRjfGSv76WX1I3pZyx5iy0vA35FBqbTVr9REZLnvYjKlMvadbzCHlCKNHmgKNEGPaZNj-3FEYOzoPU4aS5lr2I11nhDJRv9D5nAItuzJhhMUo4-8e7x9FESdoYIRhV_ryjhwEGAq-fzqPyY_rq-8XX5vbb19uLj7fNl4aNTUdstByBbZjwgbGZEBtWrVWgXPvtQgrtMg4b03HbCfr6CCYUH5tZRWslDwmJ3vfbU6_ZiyTi33xOAwwYpqLE0ZbZTnjC_rpP_Quzbn-t1IrIbVqlZGVEnvK51RKxuC2uY-Qd44zt2Th9lm4moV7zMItoo9P1vM6YvdX8mf5FZB7oNSncYP5X-8XbB8ACsGUhw</recordid><startdate>20230601</startdate><enddate>20230601</enddate><creator>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji</creator><creator>Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew</creator><creator>Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230601</creationdate><title>Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji ; Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew ; Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-de0f415a9d029f003fe6745b5f11cc62f8e9e01147d09d3075a2025cb93029853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Review Paper</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tadesse, Getu Ferenji</au><au>Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew</au><au>Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound</jtitle><stitle>J Ultrasound</stitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound</addtitle><date>2023-06-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>355</spage><epage>367</epage><pages>355-367</pages><issn>1876-7931</issn><issn>1971-3495</issn><eissn>1876-7931</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.
Methods
Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of MMG and US. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference.
Results
Analysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of MMG and US in detecting breast cancer were as follows: pooled sensitivity per-patient were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) respectively, The pooled specificities for detection of breast cancer using MMG, and US were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.91) respectively. AUC of MMG, and US were 0.8933 and 0.8310 respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity per-lesion was 76% (95% CI 0.62–0.86) and 82% (95% CI 0.66–0.91) for MMG and 94% (95% CI 0.87–0.97) and 84% (95% CI 0.74–0.91) for US.
Conclusions
The meta-analysis found that, US and MMG has similar diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer on per-patient basis after corrected threshold effect. However, on a per-lesion basis US was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy than MMG.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>36696046</pmid><doi>10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1876-7931 |
| ispartof | Journal of ultrasound, 2023-06, Vol.26 (2), p.355-367 |
| issn | 1876-7931 1971-3495 1876-7931 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2769591015 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Diagnostic systems Female Humans Mammography Mammography - methods Medical imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Review Paper Sensitivity Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography Ultrasonography, Mammary - methods Ultrasound |
| title | Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T15%3A53%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20performance%20of%20mammography%20and%20ultrasound%20in%20breast%20cancer:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ultrasound&rft.au=Tadesse,%20Getu%20Ferenji&rft.date=2023-06-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=355&rft.epage=367&rft.pages=355-367&rft.issn=1876-7931&rft.eissn=1876-7931&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40477-022-00755-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2823654573%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2823654573&rft_id=info:pmid/36696046&rfr_iscdi=true |