Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesNo consensus exists on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) utilization for breast cancer detection. We performed a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DBT, combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and DM alone for breast cancer detection in average-risk women.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until September 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and/or DM for breast cancer detection were included. Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Accuracy metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of multiple covariates was assessed using meta-regression. PROSPERO ID: CRD 42018111287.ResultsThirty-eight studies reporting on 488,099 patients (13,923 with breast cancer) were included. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and DM alone demonstrated sensitivities of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83–92), 88% (CI 83–92), and 79% (CI 75–82), as well as specificities of 84% (CI 76–89), 81% (CI 73–88), and 79% (CI 71–85), respectively. The greater sensitivities of DBT alone and combined DBT and DM compared to DM alone were preserved in the combined meta-regression models accounting for other covariates (p = 0.003–0.006). No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between DBT alone and combined DBT and DM was identified (p = 0.175–0.581).ConclusionsDBT is more sensitive than DM, while the addition of DM to DBT provides no additional diagnostic benefit. Consideration of these findings in breast cancer imaging guidelines is recommended.Key Points• Digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is more sensitive in detecting breast cancer than digital mammography alone in women at average risk for breast cancer.• The addition of digital mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis provides no additional diagnostic benefit in detecting breast cancer compared to digital breast tomosynthesis alone.• The specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is no different than digital mammography alone in the detection of breast cancer.

BackgroundProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET is highly sensitive in identifying disease recurrence in men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (BCR) after primary therapy and is rapidly being adopted in clinical practice. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the documented impact of PSMA-PET on patient management and outcomes, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and intermediate and long-term outcome measures.Materials and methodsMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and OVID databases were searched for studies reporting on the impact of PSMA-PET on the management and outcomes of patients with BCR after definitive primary therapy. Outcome measures assessed included biochemical response to therapy after PET and BCR-free survival (BRFS). The proportions of patients in whom management changed, and the proportion of patients in whom each outcome measure was obtained were tabulated and pooled into meta-analysis using DerSimonian-Laird method.ResultsA total of 34 studies with 3680 men reported change in management after PSMA-PET and 27 studies with 2639 men reported on at least one outcome measure and had follow-up data. PSMA-PET was positive in 2508/3680 (68.2%). The pooled proportion of change in management after PSMA-PET was 56.4% (95% CI, 48.0–63.9%). A decrease in serum PSA was documented in 72.4% of men (95% CI, 63.4–81.5%), and complete biochemical response in 23.3% (95% CI, 14.6–32.0%) at a median follow-up of 8.1 and 11 months, respectively. The pooled BRFS rate was 60.2% (95% CI, 49.1–71.4%) at a median follow-up of 20 months.ConclusionIn conclusion, PSMA PET is positive in more than 2/3 of men with BCR and impacts patient management in more than half of the men. BRFS after PET-directed management is 60% at a median of 20 months after salvage therapy, and complete biochemical response may be achieved in up to a quarter of men.

Object Lipomyelomeningocele (LMM) is a congenital spinal cord anomaly. While patients with LMM may initially be asymptomatic, neurological sequelae secondary to LMM may become apparent as the patient ages. Consequently, some pediatric neurosurgeons have advocated for upfront neurosurgical interventions irrespective of the presence of symptoms at diagnosis. By contrast, others pursue a conservative approach when overt neurological symptoms are not yet evident. In light of the various practice styles to the heterogeneous anatomical locations, symptoms, and ages associated with LMM, we have conducted a multi-center survey of Canadian pediatric neurosurgeons using clinical vignettes representative of LMM patients. Methods An online survey of the opinions of Canadian pediatric neurosurgeons was conducted using 5 separate cases with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the lumbar spine. Each case was accompanied with the same three clinical vignettes, which varied in severity at time of presentation: asymptomatic, progressive somatic motor deficit, or longstanding overflow incontinence. Participants were asked the question, “Would you offer surgical management?” after each clinical vignette. After the five cases and their corresponding 3 clinical vignettes, participants were asked, “If you answered yes to any of the preceding questions, what type of surgery would you perform?”. Options for surgical goals and techniques included complete removal, near-total removal, debulking, detethering, and expansile duroplasty. Surgical adjuncts included CUSA, LASER, and neurophysiologic monitoring. Results Twenty-three responses were received from the 38 questionnaires sent out to all staff pediatric neurosurgeons across academic medical centers in Canada. This represented a response rate of 61%. Canadian pediatric neurosurgeons generally maintain a conservative approach to the surgical management of LMM as only 13% ( n  = 3) of surgeons indicated that they would operate in all scenarios. By contrast, 43% ( n  = 10) indicated surgical management in only those cases presenting with symptoms, and another 43% (n = 10) displayed a variable surgical approach. Nine percent ( n  = 2) of participants would not perform surgery for incontinence. The greatest level of disagreement among participants pertained to the management of asymptomatic sacral LMM where 43% of participants favored prophylactic surgery, while 57% of participants preferred conservative management. Conclusions The current study highlights the differences in management of LMM among Canadian pediatric neurosurgeons and provides further support for future prospective cohort studies to develop appropriate expert opinions and guidelines such that the care of LMM patients may be according to evidence-based best practice. This is especially true for the treatment of asymptomatic patients, a patient group that would benefit from a randomized controlled trial to assess the long-term outcomes of conservative and surgical management.