بررسی صحت تشخیصی دو روش برست لایت و ترموگرافی در غربالگری سرطان پستان: یک مطالعه مروری

نوع مقاله : مروری

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه مامایی و بهداشت باروری، مرکز تحقیقات مراقبت‌های پرستاری و مامایی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکترای تخصصی بهداشت باروری، کمیته تحقیقات دانشجویی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3 دانشجوی کارشناس ارشد مامایی، کمیته تحقیقات دانشجویی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

4 متخصص جراحی پستان، گروه پژوهشی سرطان، بیمارستان سیدالشهدا، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه: ماموگرافی، استاندارد طلایی برای تشخیص سرطان پستان است، اما در سال‌های اخیر روش‌های دیگری مانند دستگاه برست لایت و ترموگرافی در غربالگری سرطان مطرح شده است، اما نتایج ضد‌و‌نقیضی در مورد صحت تشخیصی این دو روش وجود دارد. مطالعه مروری حاضر با هدف تعیین صحت تشخیص دو روش برست لایت و ترموگرافی در غربالگری سرطان پستان انجام شد.
روش‌کار: برای دستیابی به مطالعات، جستجو بین سال‌های 2019-1900 در پایگاه الکترونیکی SID،Google scholar، Pubmed،Cochran ،Scopus  و Web Of Sciences با استفاده از کلیدواژه‌های انگلیسیBreast Cancer، Thermography، Breast light، Ultrasound و Mammography انجام شد. جمعیت مورد مطالعه تمام زنان مراجعه‌کننده به مراکز درمانی بودند که با روش ترموگرافی و برست لایت ارزیابی شدند. معیارهای اصلی ورود مطالعات در مطالعه شامل: مقالات منتشر شده در مورد حساسیت، ویژگی، ارزش اخباری مثبت و ارزش اخباری منفی دو روش ترموگرافی و برست لایت بودند. داده‌های ناکافی مقالات و محتوای نامناسب و خارج از مطالعه، به‌عنوان معیارهای خروج از مطالعه در نظر گرفته شدند. متن کامل مقالات مرتبط با استفاده از چک‌لیست STARD ارزیابی و در نهایت 9 مقاله که واجد ورود به مطالعه بودند، انتخاب شد.
یافته‌ها: در بررسی مطالعات مختلف با مقایسه حساسیت، ویژگی، ارزش اخباری مثبت و منفی دو روش برست لایت و ترموگرافی با سایر روش‌ها (ماموگرافی، سونوگرافی و معاینه بالینی پستان)، روش برست لایت دارای حساسیت 93-6/85%، ویژگی 3/73-4/53%، ارزش اخباری مثبت 5/93-4/91% و منفی 8/77-7/29% بود. از طرفی روش ترموگرافی با حساسیت 100%، ویژگی 3/95-68/68%، ارزش اخباری مثبت 1/41-8/15% و منفی 100-1/99% گزارش شد.
نتیجه‌گیری: روش برست لایت ویژگی پایین دارد و روش ترموگرافی نیز اگرچه حساسیت بالایی دارد، اما ویژگی و ارزش اخباری مثبت روش پایین است، بنابراین می‌توان از این دو به‌عنوان روش کمکی در کنار ماموگرافی و یا سونوگرافی استفاده کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Diagnostic accuracy of two methods of Breast light and thermography in breast cancer screening: A review study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mitra Savabi-Esfahani 1
  • Marzieh Ghasemi Gujani 2
  • Zahra Babakhani 3
  • Maryam Tabatabaeyan 4
1 Assistant professor, Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2 PhD Candidate of Reproductive Health, Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3 M.Sc. Student of Midwifery, Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
4 Breast Surgeon, Cancer Research Group, Seyed Al-Shohada Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Mammography is the gold standard for diagnosis of breast cancer. But in recent years, other methods such as the Breast Light and thermography have been raised in cancer screening. There are conflicting results about the accuracy of these methods. This review study was performed with aim to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the diagnosis of two methods of breast light and thermography in breast cancer screening.
Methods: To achieve the studies, the search was conducted between 1900-2019 on the electronic databases of SID, Google scholar, Pubmed, Cochran, Scopus, Web Of Sciences using the keywords of Mammography, Ultrasound, Breast light, Thermography, Breast Cancer. Participants in the study were all women referred to medical centers who were evaluated by thermography and Brest Light method. The main inclusion criteria included the published articles on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of thermography and Brest Light methods. Insufficient data of articles and inappropriate and out-of-study content were considered as exclusion criteria. The STARD checklists were used to assess the full-text of the articles, and finally 9 articles which met the inclusion criteria were selected.
Results: In the assessment of various studies comparing sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of two methods of Breast light and thermography with other methods (mammography, ultrasound and clinical examination of the breast) showed that Bright light method had the sensitivity of 85.56% -93%, specificity of 53.4%-73.3%, the positive predictive value of 91.4%-93.5% and negative predictive value of 29.7%-77.8%. Thermography method had the sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 68.68%-95.3%, positive predictive value of 15.8% - 41.1% and negative predictive value of 99.1%-100%.
Conclusion: Bright light method has low specificity and although thermography method has high sensitivity, but the specificity and positive predictive value of the method is low, therefore these two methods can be used as an auxiliary method beside mammography or ultrasound.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Breast Cancer
  • Breast light
  • Mammography
  • Thermography
  • Ultrasound

مراجع

  1. Donnelly TT, Al Khater AH, Al Kuwari MG, Al-Bader SB, Al-Meer N, Abdulmalik M, et al. Do socioeconomic factors influence breast cancer screening practices among Arab women in Qatar?. BMJ open 2015; 5(1): e005596.
  2. Farid ND, Aziz NA, Al-Sadat N, Jamaludin M, Dahlui M. Clinical breast examination as the recommended breast cancer screening modality in a rural community in Malaysia; what are the factors that could enhance its uptake? PLoS One 2014; 9(9):e106469.
  3. Tazhibi M, Feizi A. Awareness levels about breast cancer risk factors, early warning signs, and screening and therapeutic approaches among Iranian adult women: a large population based study using latent class analysis. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014:306352.
  4. Loh SY, Ong L, Ng LL, Chew SL, Lee SY, Boniface G. Qualitative experiences of breast cancer survivors on a self-management intervention: 2-year post-intervention. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011; 12(6):1489-95.
  5. Tirgari B, Iranmanesh S, Fazel A, Kalantari B. Quality of life and mood state in Iranian women post mastectomy. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2012; 16(3):E118-22.
  6. Rakhshani T, Asadi ZS, Taravatmanesh S, Kashfi SM, Ebrahimi MR. Study of the women’s breast cancer screening behavior in Shiraz, 2016. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2018; 21(8):39-46.
  7. Montazeri A, Vahdaninia M, Harirchi I, Harirchi AM, Sajadian A, Khaleghi F, et al. Breast cancer in Iran: need for greater women awareness of warning signs and effective screening methods. Asia Pac Fam Med 2008; 7(1):6.
  8. Novak E. Berek & Novak's gynecology Book: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Tehran: Artin teb publisher; 2012.
  9. Anderson BO, Yip CH, Smith RA, Shyyan R, Sener SF, Eniu A, et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries: overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit 2007. Cancer 2008; 113(8 Suppl):2221-43.
  10. Ghartey FN, Watmough D, Debrah S, Morna M, Anyanful A. Breast-i Is an Effective and Reliable Adjunct Screening Tool for Detecting Early Tumour Related Angiogenesis of Breast Cancers in Low Resource Sub-Saharan Countries. Int J Breast Cancer 2018; 2018:2539056.
  11. Bakhteyari A. Assessment of the reasons for avoiding screening mammography among nurse and midwives affiliated to health and treatment centers in Mazandaran province. Journal of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences 2006; 3(3):39-46.
  12. Hayati F, Rouhandeh R. Evaluation of the demographic factors and health beliefs associated with screening mammography in the female employees aged 35 years and more in the schools of medical sciences in Abadan, Iran. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2018; 21(1):52-9.
  13. Shiryazdi SM, Kargar S, Taheri-Nasaj H, Neamatzadeh H. BreastLight apparatus performance in detection of breast masses depends on mass size. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16(3):1181-4.
  14. Alwan N. Evaluating the Accuracy of the" Breastlight" as a Screening Tool for Breast Cancer in Iraq. International Journal 2014; 2(10):522-31.
  15. Ghayoumizadeh H, Pourkazerouni Iman A, Haddadnia J, Hashemian M. Detection of breast cancer based on thermal pattern in infrared images. Iranian Quarterly Journal of Breast Diseases 2011;4(1):19-30. eng.
  16. Omranipour R, Kazemian A, Alipour S, Najafi M, Alidoosti M, Navid M, et al. Comparison of the Accuracy of Thermography and Mammography in the Detection of Breast Cancer. Breast Care (Basel) 2016; 11(4):260-264.
  17. Yahara T, Koga T, Yoshida S, Nakagawa S, Deguchi H, Shirouzu K. Relationship between microvessel density and thermographic hot areas in breast cancer. Surg Today 2003; 33(4):243-8.
  18. Labib NA, Ghobashi MM, Moneer MM, Helal MH, Abdalgaleel SA. Evaluation of BreastLight as a tool for early detection of breast lesions among females attending National Cancer Institute, Cairo University. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14(8):4647-50.
  19. Shiryazdi SM, Kargar S, Nasaj HT, Neamatzadeh H, Ghasemi N. The accuracy of Breastlight in detection of breast lesions. Indian J Cancer 2015; 52(4):513-6.
  20. Alikhassi A, Hamidpour SF, Firouzmand M, Navid M, Eghbal M. Prospective comparative study assessing role of ultrasound versus thermography in breast cancer detection. Breast Dis 2018; 37(4):191-196.
  21. de Jesus Guirro RR, Oliveira Lima Leite Vaz MM, das Neves LMS, Dibai-Filho AV, Carrara HHA, de Oliveira Guirro EC. Accuracy and Reliability of Infrared Thermography in Assessment of the Breasts of Women Affected by Cancer. J Med Syst 2017; 41(5):87.
  22. Morales-Cervantes A, Kolosovas-Machuca ES, Guevara E, Maruris Reducindo M, Bello Hernández AB, Ramos García M, et al. An automated method for the evaluation of breast cancer using infrared thermography. EXCLI J 2018; 17:989-998.
  23. Jalalpour S, Assar S, Ayoubi F, Rahmani MR, Rezaeian M. A Standard for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences 2015; 14(1):57-68.
  24. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 2016; 6(11):e012799.
  25. Neal CH, Flynt KA, Jeffries DO, Helvie MA. Breast Imaging Outcomes following Abnormal Thermography. Acad Radiol 2018; 25(3):273-278.
  26. Yaseri M, Pakpour A, Rahmani S, Rangin H, Akaberi A. Self-Learning concepts of diagnostic tests by graphical approach: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Journal of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences 2012; 4(2):275-82.
  27. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Paediatr 2007; 96(3):338-41.
  28. Kennedy DA, Lee T, Seely D. A comparative review of thermography as a breast cancer screening technique. Integr Cancer Ther 2009; 8(1):9-16.
مجله زنان، مامایی و نازایی ایران
دوره 24، شماره 2
اردیبهشت 1400
صفحه 86-95

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار