Cargando…
Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes
OBJECTIVE: This follow-up study of BreastScreen Victoria’s pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis aimed to report interval cancer rates, screening sensitivity, and density-stratified outcomes for tomosynthesis vs mammography screening. METHODS: Prospective pilot trial [ACTRN-12617000947303] in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The British Institute of Radiology.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10392654/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37191331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230081 |
_version_ | 1785083010754805760 |
---|---|
author | Houssami, Nehmat Lockie, Darren Giles, Michelle Noguchi, Naomi Marr, Georgina Marinovich, M Luke |
author_facet | Houssami, Nehmat Lockie, Darren Giles, Michelle Noguchi, Naomi Marr, Georgina Marinovich, M Luke |
author_sort | Houssami, Nehmat |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This follow-up study of BreastScreen Victoria’s pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis aimed to report interval cancer rates, screening sensitivity, and density-stratified outcomes for tomosynthesis vs mammography screening. METHODS: Prospective pilot trial [ACTRN-12617000947303] in Maroondah BreastScreen recruited females ≥ 40 years presenting for screening (August 2017–November 2018) to DBT; concurrent screening participants who received mammography formed a comparison group. Follow-up of 24 months from screen date was used to ascertain interval cancers; automated breast density was measured. RESULTS: There were 48 screen-detected and 9 interval cancers amongst 4908 tomosynthesis screens, and 34 screen-detected and 16 interval cancers amongst 5153 mammography screens. Interval cancer rate was 1.8/1000 (95%CI 0.8–3.5) for tomosynthesis vs 3.1/1000 (95%CI 1.8–5.0) for mammography (p = 0.20). Sensitivity of tomosynthesis (86.0%; 95% CI 74.2–93.7) was significantly higher than mammography (68.0%; 95% CI 53.3–80.5), p = 0.03. Cancer detection rate (CDR) of 9.8/1000 (95%CI 7.2–12.9) for tomosynthesis was higher than that of 6.6/1000 (95%CI 4.6–9.2) for mammography (p = 0.08); density-stratified analyses showed CDR was significantly higher for tomosynthesis than mammography (10.6/1000 vs 3.5/1000, p = 0.03) in high-density screens. Recall rate for tomosynthesis was significantly higher than for mammography (4.2% vs 3.0%, p < 0.001), and this increase in recall for tomosynthesis was evident only in high-density screens (5.6% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although interval cancer rates did not significantly differ between screened groups, sensitivity was significantly higher for tomosynthesis than mammography screening. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: In a program-embedded pilot trial, both increased cancer detection and recall rates from tomosynthesis were predominantly observed in high-density screens. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10392654 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | The British Institute of Radiology. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103926542023-08-02 Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes Houssami, Nehmat Lockie, Darren Giles, Michelle Noguchi, Naomi Marr, Georgina Marinovich, M Luke Br J Radiol Full Paper OBJECTIVE: This follow-up study of BreastScreen Victoria’s pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis aimed to report interval cancer rates, screening sensitivity, and density-stratified outcomes for tomosynthesis vs mammography screening. METHODS: Prospective pilot trial [ACTRN-12617000947303] in Maroondah BreastScreen recruited females ≥ 40 years presenting for screening (August 2017–November 2018) to DBT; concurrent screening participants who received mammography formed a comparison group. Follow-up of 24 months from screen date was used to ascertain interval cancers; automated breast density was measured. RESULTS: There were 48 screen-detected and 9 interval cancers amongst 4908 tomosynthesis screens, and 34 screen-detected and 16 interval cancers amongst 5153 mammography screens. Interval cancer rate was 1.8/1000 (95%CI 0.8–3.5) for tomosynthesis vs 3.1/1000 (95%CI 1.8–5.0) for mammography (p = 0.20). Sensitivity of tomosynthesis (86.0%; 95% CI 74.2–93.7) was significantly higher than mammography (68.0%; 95% CI 53.3–80.5), p = 0.03. Cancer detection rate (CDR) of 9.8/1000 (95%CI 7.2–12.9) for tomosynthesis was higher than that of 6.6/1000 (95%CI 4.6–9.2) for mammography (p = 0.08); density-stratified analyses showed CDR was significantly higher for tomosynthesis than mammography (10.6/1000 vs 3.5/1000, p = 0.03) in high-density screens. Recall rate for tomosynthesis was significantly higher than for mammography (4.2% vs 3.0%, p < 0.001), and this increase in recall for tomosynthesis was evident only in high-density screens (5.6% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although interval cancer rates did not significantly differ between screened groups, sensitivity was significantly higher for tomosynthesis than mammography screening. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: In a program-embedded pilot trial, both increased cancer detection and recall rates from tomosynthesis were predominantly observed in high-density screens. The British Institute of Radiology. 2023-08 2023-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10392654/ /pubmed/37191331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230081 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted non-commercial reuse, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Full Paper Houssami, Nehmat Lockie, Darren Giles, Michelle Noguchi, Naomi Marr, Georgina Marinovich, M Luke Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
title | Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
title_full | Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
title_fullStr | Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
title_full_unstemmed | Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
title_short | Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
title_sort | two-year follow-up of participants in the breastscreen victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes |
topic | Full Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10392654/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37191331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230081 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT houssaminehmat twoyearfollowupofparticipantsinthebreastscreenvictoriapilottrialoftomosynthesisversusmammographybreastdensitystratifiedscreeningoutcomes AT lockiedarren twoyearfollowupofparticipantsinthebreastscreenvictoriapilottrialoftomosynthesisversusmammographybreastdensitystratifiedscreeningoutcomes AT gilesmichelle twoyearfollowupofparticipantsinthebreastscreenvictoriapilottrialoftomosynthesisversusmammographybreastdensitystratifiedscreeningoutcomes AT noguchinaomi twoyearfollowupofparticipantsinthebreastscreenvictoriapilottrialoftomosynthesisversusmammographybreastdensitystratifiedscreeningoutcomes AT marrgeorgina twoyearfollowupofparticipantsinthebreastscreenvictoriapilottrialoftomosynthesisversusmammographybreastdensitystratifiedscreeningoutcomes AT marinovichmluke twoyearfollowupofparticipantsinthebreastscreenvictoriapilottrialoftomosynthesisversusmammographybreastdensitystratifiedscreeningoutcomes |