A systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation of automated breast density measurement.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and a leading cause of mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the correlation between breast density measurements obtained from various software and visual assessments by radiologists using full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, five databases (Pubmed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE) were searched for studies correlating volumetric breast density with breast cancer risk. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis of correlation was applied to aggregate correlation coefficients using a random-effects model using MedCalc Statistical Software version 19.2.6. RESULTS: The review included 22 studies with a total of 58,491 women. The pooled correlation coefficient for volumetric breast density amongst Volpara™ and Quantra™ was found to be 0.755 (95% CI 0.496-0.890, p < 0.001), indicating a high positive correlation, albeit with a significant heterogeneity (I2 = 99.89%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses based on study origin, quality, and methodology were performed but did not reveal the heterogeneity cause. Egger's and Begg's tests showed no significant publication bias. CONCLUSION: Volumetric breast density is strongly correlated with breast cancer risk, underscoring the importance of accurate breast density assessment in screening programs. Automated volumetric measurement tools like Volpara™ and Quantra™ provide reliable assessments, potentially improving breast cancer risk prediction and management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Implementing fully automated breast density assessment tools could enhance consistency in clinical practice, minimizing observer variability and improving screening accuracy. These tools should be further validated against standardized criteria to ensure reliability in diverse clinical settings.

Priorities, satisfaction and treatment goals in psychosis patients: an online consumer's survey.

BACKGROUND: An insight into preferences, satisfaction and treatment goals of patients is important for reaching treatment alliance and may increase the success of initiated treatment. METHODS: Participants from the Netherlands,with at least one psychotic episode, were asked to fill in an online questionnaire. Participants ranked their priorities in treatment content, stated whether they were satisfied on these items and ranked a list of treatment goals. RESULTS: 462 respondents ranked their treatment preferences regarding treatment content(mean age: 40.3 years; mean duration of illness: 13.5 years). Items ranked most important: "prompt assistance, preferably in own environment", "attention for medication", "appropriate attitude of the professional caregiver". More than 50 % rated "unsatisfied" or "very unsatisfied" for: "practical help in resocialization", "aid to acquire autonomy" and "help with physical health". 345 participants ranked treatment goals (mean age: 40.4 years; mean duration of illness: 13.7 years). Items ranked most important: "reducing apathy and lack of initiative", "reducing disturbing or unusual experiences", "reducing confusion and concentration problems". CONCLUSION: Psychiatric services should pay great attention to early outpatient intervention with supportive counseling and an appropriate attitude of the caregiver with attention for medication use. Improvement is warranted for practical assistance, help in regaining autonomy and help with physical health.

Insulin treatment and cardiovascular disease; friend or foe? A point of view.

BACKGROUND: Several observational studies have shown that higher insulin levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. If higher endogenous insulin levels are causally related to cardiovascular disease, one might expect an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients treated with insulin, as this results in high circulating insulin levels. Such risk elevation might counteract the benefits of tight glucose control. Our objective was to explore the relationship between insulin therapy and cardiovascular disease in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus using information from available literature. SUMMARY OF COMMENT: Several experimental studies in animals and humans support the presence of a harmful effect of insulin on the vascular endothelium. In prospective follow-up studies increased insulin dosage was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, although confounding by indication could not be excluded. Randomized controlled trials in diabetic patients, comparing conventional with intensive glucose-lowering treatment, although showing a reduction in microvascular disease, showed no significant difference in the incidence of cardiovascular disease. The results with respect to exposure to insulin are, however, difficult to interpret due to insufficient information on exposure to insulin levels as well as confounding by glycaemic control and body mass index. In addition, these studies were not designed to address the question whether higher insulin use relates to increased cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Published research provides conflicting evidence as to whether exposure to high levels of exogenous insulin in diabetes mellitus affects the risk of cardiovascular disease. The currently available studies have a number of serious methodological restraints that limit accurate interpretation and conclusions in this area.