Showing posts with label Mammography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mammography. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 February 2023

 

A systematic review of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening and diagnosis

 

by Tong Li, Brooke Nickel, Preston Ngo, Kathleen McFadden, Meagan Brennan, M Luke Marinovich, Nehmat Houssami 

 

The Breast: VOLUME 67, P78-88, FEBRUARY 2023

Background

Breast cancer care has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aims to describe the observed pandemic-related changes in clinical and health services outcomes for breast screening and diagnosis.

Methods

Seven databases (January 2020–March 2021) were searched to identify studies of breast cancer screening or diagnosis that reported observed outcomes before and related to the pandemic. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach.

Results

Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review; all compared periods before and after (or fluctuations during) the pandemic. None were assessed as being at low risk of bias. A reduction in screening volumes during the pandemic was found with over half of studies reporting reductions of ≥49%. A majority (66%) of studies reported reductions of ≥25% in the number of breast cancer diagnoses, and there was a higher proportion of symptomatic than screen-detected cancers. The distribution of cancer stage at diagnosis during the pandemic showed lower proportions of early-stage (stage 0–1/I-II, or Tis and T1) and higher proportions of relatively more advanced cases than that in the pre-pandemic period, however population rates were generally not reported.

Conclusions

Evidence of substantial reductions in screening volume and number of diagnosed breast cancers, and higher proportions of advanced stage cancer at diagnosis were found during the pandemic. However, these findings reflect short term outcomes, and higher-quality research examining the long-term impact of the pandemic is needed.

Wednesday, 30 December 2020

Mammographic sensitivity as a function of tumor size: a novel estimation based on population-based screening data

 

 Mammographic sensitivity as a function of tumor size: a novel estimation based on population-based screening data

 

by Jing Wang, Pam Gottschal, Lilu Ding, Daniëlle.W.A van Veldhuizen, Wenli Lu, Nehmat Houssami, Marcel J.W. Greuter, Geertruida H. de Bock

 

The Breast: VOLUME  55, P69-74, FEBRUARY 01, 2021

 

Highlights

•Mammographic sensitivity is a key indicator of screening effectiveness.

•Previous model using logistic function might overestimate size-specific sensitivity.

•Our model showed that sensitivity increased from 0 to 85% for tumor sizes from 2 to 20 mm.

•Our model may provide a better representation of data observed in screening programs.

Background

Instead of a single value for mammographic sensitivity, a sensitivity function based on tumor size more realistically reflects mammography’s detection capability. Because previous models may have overestimated size-specific sensitivity, we aimed to provide a novel approach to improve sensitivity estimation as a function of tumor size.

Methods

Using aggregated data on interval and screen-detected cancers, observed tumor sizes were back-calculated to the time of screening using an exponential tumor growth model and a follow-up time of 4 years. From the observed number of detected cancers and an estimation of the number of false-negative cancers, a model for the sensitivity as a function of tumor size was determined. A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying follow-up time and tumor volume doubling time (TVDT). A systematic review was conducted for external validation of the sensitivity model.

Results

Aggregated data of 22,915 screen-detected and 10,670 interval breast cancers from the Dutch screening program were used. The model showed that sensitivity increased from 0 to 85% for tumor sizes from 2 to 20 mm. When TVDT was set at the upper and lower limits of the confidence interval, sensitivity for a 20-mm tumor was 74% and 93%, respectively. The estimated sensitivity gave comparable estimates to those from two of three studies identified by our systematic review.

Conclusion

Derived from aggregated breast screening outcomes data, our model’s estimation of sensitivity as a function of tumor size may provide a better representation of data observed in screening programs than other models.

Thursday, 24 October 2019

Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation



by Daniela Bernardi, Maria A. Gentilini, Martina De Nisi, Marco Pellegrini, Carmine Fantò, Marvi Valentini, Vincenzo Sabatino, Andrea Luparia, Nehmat Houssami

The Breast, (in press) 2019.09.12

The Trento screening program transitioned to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening based on evidence that DBT improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography; an evaluation of the transition to DBT is reported in this pilot study.

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial



by Sepideh Saadatmand, H Amarens Geuzinge, Emiel J T Rutgers, Ritse M Mann, Diderick B W de Roy van Zuidewijn, Harmien M Zonderland, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Marc B I Lobbes, Margreet G E M Ausems, Martijne van 't Riet, Maartje J Hooning, Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts, Ernest J T Luiten, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Cees Verhoef, Nico Karssemeijer, Jan C Oosterwijk, Inge-Marie Obdeijn, Harry J de Koning, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst, FaMRIsc study group

The Lancet Oncology: Articles| volume 20 issue 8, p1136-1147, August 01, 2019

MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density.

Thursday, 28 February 2019

Agreement between digital breast tomosynthesis and pathologic tumour size for staging breast cancer, and comparison with standard mammography



by M. Luke Marinovich, Daniela Bernardi, Petra Macaskill, Anna Ventriglia, Vincenzo Sabatino, Nehmat Houssami  

The Breast: February 2019, Volume 43, Pages 59-66

Tomosynthesis is proposed to improve breast cancer assessment and staging. We compared tomosynthesis and mammography in estimating the size of newly-diagnosed breast cancers.

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

[News] Mammography deficiencies: the result of poor positioning



The Lancet Oncology by Elizabeth Gourd  


NEWS| VOLUME 19, ISSUE 8, PE385, AUGUST 01, 2018

Poor patient positioning is the leading cause of clinical image deficiencies and accreditation failures in mammography, according to a recent investigation.

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

Author(s) Duffy, Stephen W; Morrish, Oliver W E; Allgood, Prue C; Black, Richard; Gillan, Maureen G C; Willsher, Paula; Cooke, Julie; Duncan, Karen A; Michell, Michael J; Dobson, Hilary M; Maroni, Roberta; Lim, Yit Y; Purushothaman, Hema N; Suaris, Tamara; Astley, Susan M; Young, Kenneth C; Tucker, Lorraine; Gilbert, Fiona J
Source European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990); Jan 2018; vol. 88 ; p. 48-56
Publication Date Jan 2018
Place of Publication England
Accession Number 29190506
ISSN 1879-0852
PubMed ID 29190506
Publication Type(s) Journal Article
Database Medline
Abstract
BACKGROUNDMammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer.AIMTo assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic density visually as a percentage, and with two automated volumetric methods, Quantra™ and VolparaDensity™.METHODSThe TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY (TOMMY) study of digital breast tomosynthesis in the Breast Screening Programme of the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom (UK) included 6020 breast screening assessment cases (of whom 1158 had breast cancer) and 1040 screened women with a family history of breast cancer (of whom two had breast cancer). We assessed the association of each measure with breast cancer risk in these populations at enhanced risk, using logistic regression adjusted for age and total breast volume as a surrogate for body mass index (BMI).RESULTSAll density measures showed a positive association with presence of cancer and all declined with age. The strongest effect was seen with Volpara absolute density, with a significant 3% (95% CI 1-5%) increase in risk per 10 cm3 of dense tissue. The effect of Volpara volumetric density on risk was stronger for large and grade 3 tumours.CONCLUSIONSAutomated absolute breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk in populations at enhanced risk due to either positive mammographic findings or family history. In the screening context, density could be a trigger for more intensive imaging.

Monday, 27 October 2014

Invisible risks, emotional choices

Invisible risks, emotional choices: Mammography and medical decision making. NEJM, 2014; 371: 1549-52.

Rosenbaum, L.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1409003?af=R&rss=currentIssue


Thursday, 8 May 2014

Breast cancer screening pamphlets mislead women

Breast cancer screening pamphlets mislead women. BMJ 2014; 348

Gigerenzer, G.

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2636?rss=1

Why should I have mammography? That question is regularly asked in pamphlets for screening. The answer is also regularly misleading. Women are told what they should do, but without being given the facts necessary to make informed decisions. This form of paternalism has a long tradition. In a campaign poster in the 1980s, the American Cancer Society declared: “If you haven’t had a mammogram, you need more than your breasts examined.”

Thursday, 18 July 2013

The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening

The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: A systematic review. The breast, August 2013, Vol. 22(4), p.389-94.

Whelehan, P., et al.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096097761300057X

Uptake is crucial to reducing breast cancer mortality through screening. This review synthesised all available evidence on mammography pain as a deterrent to subsequent breast screening. Ten databases were searched. Studies containing empirical data relating mammography pain to breast screening re-attendance were included (n = 20). In the most robust studies asking women why they had not re-attended, 25%–46% cited pain, equivalent to approximately 47,000–87,000 women per year in England. The most robust evidence for an association between pain experienced at a previous mammogram and subsequent rates of re-attendance suggests that women who previously experienced pain are more likely than those who did not to fail to re-attend: RR 1.34 (95% CI: 0.94–1.91). The complexity of the pain phenomenon and of screening behaviours must be recognised. However, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that painful mammography contributes to non-re-attendance. Given the importance of cumulative participation, effective pain-reducing interventions in mammography are needed.

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Breast cancer screening - time to move forward?

Breast cancer screening - time to move forward? The lancet, April 2012, Vol. 379(9823), p.1289-90.

Cuzick, J.


Peter Gøtzsche's Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy provides more insight into the polarisation and irrationality of the debate on breast cancer screening than any useful information about the impact of screening in reducing breast cancer mortality.

Detection of breast cancer

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA, April 2012, Vol. 307(13), p.1394-1404.

Berg, W.A., et al.


The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings.

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumour size

Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumour size. The Breast, Vol. 21(1), Feb. 2012, p. 66-71.

Eo, J.S., et al.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096097761100169X

Positron emission mammography (PEM) has been reported to have higher sensitivity than whole-body positron emission tomography (PET)due to higher spatial resolution. However, no direct evidence exists regarding the imaging sensitivity of PEM related to lesion size. In the present study, imaging sensitivity of PEM was investigated in relation to pathologically confirmed tumor size.

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Challenges in mammography Part I: Artifacts in digital mammography

Challenges in mammography Part I: Artifacts in digital mammography. AJR, Dec 2011, Vol 197(6), p. W1023-W1030

Geiser, W.R., et al.

http://www.ajronline.org/content/197/6/W1023.abstract?rss=1

Early detection of breast cancer is directly related to the radiologist’s ability to detect abnormalities visible only on mammograms. Artifacts on mammograms reduce image quality and may present clinical and technical difficulties for the radiologist, mammography technologist, medical physicist, and equipment service personnel.

Impact on breast cancer diagnosis in a multidisciplinary unit after the incorporation of mammography digitalization

Impact on breast cancer diagnosis in a multidisciplinary unit after the incorporation of mammography digitalization and computer-aided detection systems. AJR, Dec 2011, Vol 197(6), p. 1492-97.

Romero, C., et al.

http://www.ajronline.org/content/197/6/1492.abstract?rss=1

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the impact on the diagnosis of breast cancer of implementing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a multidisciplinary breast pathology unit and, 1 year later, the addition of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system.

Thursday, 14 July 2011

Role of mammography in the triple assessment of single-quadrant breast symptoms

Role of mammography in the triple assessment of single-quadrant breast symptoms.

British journal of surgery, vol 98(7), p.951-5.

Donnelly, J., et al.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.7490/full

Most women over the age of 35 years referred to a breast clinic have single-quadrant symptoms and undergo mammography (MMG) as part of the triple assessment of these. A proportion of these women has no abnormality clinically or on ultrasonography (P1 U1). The aim of this study was to assess the additional contribution of MMG in diagnosing cancer in patients with P1 U1 findings and to consider whether it is safe to be more selective when requesting MMG.

Monday, 27 June 2011

Wednesday, 9 March 2011