FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4362474846> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4362474846 abstract "Background Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false‐negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false‐positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Objectives To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021. Selection criteria For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non‐randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria. Data collection and analysis Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random‐effects meta‐analysis. Main results We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow‐up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all‐cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J‐START (Japan Strategic Anti‐cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False‐negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false‐positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false‐positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J‐START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non‐dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta‐analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non‐dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J‐START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening‐detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real‐life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non‐dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false‐positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen‐detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality." @default.
• W4362474846 created "2023-04-05" @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5000944221 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5013031059 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5028567472 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5029369158 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5033265562 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5071068359 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5073796059 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5075242884 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5084960854 @default.
• W4362474846 creator A5088849354 @default.
• W4362474846 date "2023-03-31" @default.
• W4362474846 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W4362474846 title "Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk" @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1549906179 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1760351431 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1817813190 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1842840868 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1867337880 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1966269405 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W1995985336 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2008920181 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2024847974 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2032751303 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2038751842 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2072401738 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2074996049 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2081202195 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2083479314 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2108286141 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2111151267 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2114460270 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2119349383 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2124653673 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2125902772 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2129034112 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2131076848 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2133915578 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2135400982 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2137040237 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2149988868 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2155272346 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2158732932 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2169666080 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2170333467 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2192446798 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2235624370 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2280342795 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2283351472 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2293501394 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2328776049 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2406071682 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2415059400 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2523102193 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2529908594 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2531269403 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2581828401 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2746521492 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2756566566 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2790281834 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2801749275 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2810124975 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2903820812 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2921149595 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2922040900 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2957751887 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2970684805 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W2990198649 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3008671606 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3030872057 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3035688850 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3096305413 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3118983547 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3128646645 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3135180484 @default.
• W4362474846 cites W3193648988 @default.
• W4362474846 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009632.pub3" @default.
• W4362474846 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36999589" @default.
• W4362474846 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4362474846 type Work @default.
• W4362474846 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4362474846 countsByYear W43624748462023 @default.
• W4362474846 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5000944221 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5013031059 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5028567472 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5029369158 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5033265562 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5071068359 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5073796059 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5075242884 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5084960854 @default.
• W4362474846 hasAuthorship W4362474846A5088849354 @default.
• W4362474846 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W4362474846 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4362474846 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W4362474846 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4362474846 hasConcept C201903717 @default.
• W4362474846 hasConcept C2778491387 @default.

• next