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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |