Cargando…

A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial

OBJECTIVES: To describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesized two-dimensional mammograms (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population-based screening program for breast cancer and to compare selected secondary screening outcomes for the tw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aase, Hildegunn S., Holen, Åsne S, Pedersen, Kristin, Houssami, Nehmat, Haldorsen, Ingfrid S., Sebuødegård, Sofie, Hanestad, Berit, Hofvind, Solveig
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30159620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x
_version_ 1783417488678060032
author Aase, Hildegunn S.
Holen, Åsne S
Pedersen, Kristin
Houssami, Nehmat
Haldorsen, Ingfrid S.
Sebuødegård, Sofie
Hanestad, Berit
Hofvind, Solveig
author_facet Aase, Hildegunn S.
Holen, Åsne S
Pedersen, Kristin
Houssami, Nehmat
Haldorsen, Ingfrid S.
Sebuødegård, Sofie
Hanestad, Berit
Hofvind, Solveig
author_sort Aase, Hildegunn S.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesized two-dimensional mammograms (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population-based screening program for breast cancer and to compare selected secondary screening outcomes for the two techniques. METHODS: This RCT, performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical Health Research Ethics. All screening attendees in Bergen were invited to participate, of which 89% (14,274/15,976) concented during the first year, and were randomized to DBT (n = 7155) or DM (n = 7119). Secondary screening outcomes were stratified by mammographic density and compared using two-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, ANOVA, negative binomial regression and tests of proportions (z tests). RESULTS: Mean reading time was 1 min 11 s for DBT and 41 s for DM (p < 0.01). Mean time spent at consensus was 3 min 12 s for DBT and 2 min 12 s for DM (p < 0.01), while the rate of cases discussed at consensus was 6.4% and 7.4%, respectively for DBT and DM (p = 0.03). The recall rate was 3.0% for DBT and 3.6% for DM (p = 0.03). For women with non-dense breasts, recall rate was 2.2% for DBT versus 3.4% for DM (p = 0.04). The rate did not differ for women with dense breasts (3.6% for both). Mean glandular dose per examination was 2.96 mGy for DBT and 2.95 mGy for DM (p = 0.433). CONCLUSIONS: Interim analysis of a screening RCT showed that DBT took longer to read than DM, but had significantly lower recall rate than DM. We found no differences in radiation dose between the two techniques. KEY POINTS: • In this RCT, DBT was associated with longer interpretation time than DM • Recall rates were lower for DBT than for DM • Mean glandular radiation dose did not differ between DBT and DM
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6510877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65108772019-05-28 A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial Aase, Hildegunn S. Holen, Åsne S Pedersen, Kristin Houssami, Nehmat Haldorsen, Ingfrid S. Sebuødegård, Sofie Hanestad, Berit Hofvind, Solveig Eur Radiol Breast OBJECTIVES: To describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesized two-dimensional mammograms (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population-based screening program for breast cancer and to compare selected secondary screening outcomes for the two techniques. METHODS: This RCT, performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical Health Research Ethics. All screening attendees in Bergen were invited to participate, of which 89% (14,274/15,976) concented during the first year, and were randomized to DBT (n = 7155) or DM (n = 7119). Secondary screening outcomes were stratified by mammographic density and compared using two-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, ANOVA, negative binomial regression and tests of proportions (z tests). RESULTS: Mean reading time was 1 min 11 s for DBT and 41 s for DM (p < 0.01). Mean time spent at consensus was 3 min 12 s for DBT and 2 min 12 s for DM (p < 0.01), while the rate of cases discussed at consensus was 6.4% and 7.4%, respectively for DBT and DM (p = 0.03). The recall rate was 3.0% for DBT and 3.6% for DM (p = 0.03). For women with non-dense breasts, recall rate was 2.2% for DBT versus 3.4% for DM (p = 0.04). The rate did not differ for women with dense breasts (3.6% for both). Mean glandular dose per examination was 2.96 mGy for DBT and 2.95 mGy for DM (p = 0.433). CONCLUSIONS: Interim analysis of a screening RCT showed that DBT took longer to read than DM, but had significantly lower recall rate than DM. We found no differences in radiation dose between the two techniques. KEY POINTS: • In this RCT, DBT was associated with longer interpretation time than DM • Recall rates were lower for DBT than for DM • Mean glandular radiation dose did not differ between DBT and DM Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-08-29 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6510877/ /pubmed/30159620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Breast
Aase, Hildegunn S.
Holen, Åsne S
Pedersen, Kristin
Houssami, Nehmat
Haldorsen, Ingfrid S.
Sebuødegård, Sofie
Hanestad, Berit
Hofvind, Solveig
A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
title A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
title_full A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
title_fullStr A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
title_full_unstemmed A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
title_short A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
title_sort randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the to-be trial
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30159620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x
work_keys_str_mv AT aasehildegunns arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT holenasnes arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT pedersenkristin arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT houssaminehmat arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT haldorseningfrids arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT sebuødegardsofie arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT hanestadberit arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT hofvindsolveig arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT aasehildegunns randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT holenasnes randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT pedersenkristin randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT houssaminehmat randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT haldorseningfrids randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT sebuødegardsofie randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT hanestadberit randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial
AT hofvindsolveig randomizedcontrolledtrialofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisversusdigitalmammographyinpopulationbasedscreeninginbergeninterimanalysisofperformanceindicatorsfromthetobetrial