Table 2.
Performance of US and MAM screening in programs in China
| Study | Number of participants underwent screening | Number of breast cancer patients | Sensitivity (%) |
Specificity (%) |
PPV (%) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | MAM | US + MAM | US | MAM | US + MAM | US | MAM | US + MAM | |||
| Ya-jie et al.111 | 11,236 | 54 | 57.4 | 79.6 | 92.6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Dong et al.112 | 31,918 | 99 | 61.6 | 84.8 | 94.9 | 98.8 | 98.1 | 97.2 | 13.6 | 12.2 | 9.5 |
| Shen et al.113 | 4,135 | 14 | 100 | 57.1 | 100 | 99.9 | 100 | 99.9 | 70 | 72.7 | 60.9 |
| Li et al.114 | 5,296 | 3,002 | 97.9 | 96.2 | 99.4 | 49.7 | 39.2 | 24.8 | 59.8 | 54.7 | 50.3 |
PPV, positive predictive value; US, ultrasound; MAM, mammography.