Nehmat Houssami1, Daniela Bernardi2, Francesca Caumo3, Silvia Brunelli4, Carmine Fantò2, Marvi Valentini2, Giovanna Romanucci4, Maria A Gentilini5, Manuel Zorzi6, Petra Macaskill7. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: nehmat.houssami@sydney.edu.au. 2. U.O. Senologia Clinica e Screening Mammografico, Department of Diagnostics, Azienda Provinciale Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy. 3. Breast Unit ULSS9, Ospedale di Marzana, Verona, Italy; Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCC Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Padua, Italy. 4. Breast Unit ULSS9, Ospedale di Marzana, Verona, Italy. 5. Servizio di Epidemiologia Clinica Valutativa, Azienda Provinciale Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy. 6. Veneto Tumour Registry, Veneto Region, Padua, Italy. 7. Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & METHODS: The prospective 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) trial recruited women participating in biennial breast screening in Italy (2011-2012), and compared sequential screen-readings based on 2D-mammography alone or based on tomosynthesis (integrated 2D/3D-mammography). The STORM trial showed that tomosynthesis screen-reading significantly increased breast cancer detection compared to 2D-mammography alone. The present study completes reporting of the trial by examining interval breast cancers ascertained at two year follow-up. RESULTS: 9 interval breast cancers were identified; the estimated interval cancer rate was 1.23/1000 screens [9/7292] (95%CI 0.56 to 2.34) or 1.24/1000 negative screens [9/7235] (95%CI 0.57 to 2.36). In concurrently screened women who attended the same screening services and received 2D-mammography, interval cancer rate was 1.60/1000 screens [40/25,058] (95% CI 1.14 to 2.17) or 1.61/1000 negative screens [40/24,922] (95% CI 1.15 to 2.18). Estimated screening sensitivity for the STORM trial was 85.5% [59/69] (95%CI 75.0%-92.8%), and that for 2D-mammography screening was 77.3% [136/176] (95%CI 70.4%-83.2%). CONCLUSION: Interval breast cancer rate amongst screening participants in the STORM trial was marginally lower (and screening sensitivity higher) than estimates amongst 2D-screened women; these findings should be interpreted with caution given the small number of interval cases and the sample size of the trial. Much larger screening studies, or pooled analyses, are required to examine interval cancer rates arising after breast tomosynthesis screening versus digital mammography screening.
BACKGROUND & METHODS: The prospective 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) trial recruited women participating in biennial breast screening in Italy (2011-2012), and compared sequential screen-readings based on 2D-mammography alone or based on tomosynthesis (integrated 2D/3D-mammography). The STORM trial showed that tomosynthesis screen-reading significantly increased breast cancer detection compared to 2D-mammography alone. The present study completes reporting of the trial by examining interval breast cancers ascertained at two year follow-up. RESULTS: 9 interval breast cancers were identified; the estimated interval cancer rate was 1.23/1000 screens [9/7292] (95%CI 0.56 to 2.34) or 1.24/1000 negative screens [9/7235] (95%CI 0.57 to 2.36). In concurrently screened women who attended the same screening services and received 2D-mammography, interval cancer rate was 1.60/1000 screens [40/25,058] (95% CI 1.14 to 2.17) or 1.61/1000 negative screens [40/24,922] (95% CI 1.15 to 2.18). Estimated screening sensitivity for the STORM trial was 85.5% [59/69] (95%CI 75.0%-92.8%), and that for 2D-mammography screening was 77.3% [136/176] (95%CI 70.4%-83.2%). CONCLUSION: Interval breast cancer rate amongst screening participants in the STORM trial was marginally lower (and screening sensitivity higher) than estimates amongst 2D-screened women; these findings should be interpreted with caution given the small number of interval cases and the sample size of the trial. Much larger screening studies, or pooled analyses, are required to examine interval cancer rates arising after breast tomosynthesis screening versus digital mammography screening.
Authors: Valérie D V Sankatsing; Karolina Juraniec; Sabine E Grimm; Manuela A Joore; Ruud M Pijnappel; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Emily F Conant; Samantha P Zuckerman; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Katrina E Korhonen; Julia A Birnbaum; Jennifer D Tobey; Mitchell D Schnall; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Emily F Conant; William E Barlow; Sally D Herschorn; Donald L Weaver; Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Kathryn P Lowry; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander; Christopher I Li; Mitchell D Schnall; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Daniela Bernardi; Maria A Gentilini; Martina De Nisi; Marco Pellegrini; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Vincenzo Sabatino; Andrea Luparia; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Breast Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Stefanie Weigel; Joachim Gerss; Hans-Werner Hense; Miriam Krischke; Alexander Sommer; Jörg Czwoydzinski; Horst Lenzen; Laura Kerschke; Karin Spieker; Stefanie Dickmaenken; Sonja Baier; Marc Urban; Gerold Hecht; Oliver Heidinger; Joachim Kieschke; Walter Heindel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Khawaja Bilal Waheed; Muhammad Zia Ul Hassan; Donya Al Hassan; Alaa Ali Ghaithan Al Shamrani; Muneera Al Bassam; Ahmed Aly Elbyali; Tamer Mohamed Shams; Zainab Ahmed Demiati; Zechriah Jebakumar Arulanatham Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 1.526