Literature DB >> 31078459

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.

Solveig Hofvind1, Åsne S Holen2, Hildegunn S Aase3, Nehmat Houssami4, Sofie Sebuødegård2, Tron A Moger5, Ingfrid S Haldorsen3, Lars A Akslen6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis is an advancement of mammography, and has the potential to overcome limitations of standard digital mammography. This study aimed to compare first-generation digital breast tomo-synthesis including two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammograms versus digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
METHODS: BreastScreen Norway offers all women aged 50-69 years two-view (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique) mammographic screening every 2 years and does independent double reading with consensus. We asked all 32 976 women who attended the programme in Bergen in 2016-17, to participate in this randomised, controlled trial with a parallel group design. A study-specific software was developed to allocate women to either digital breast tomosynthesis or digital mammography using a 1:1 simple randomisation method based on participants' unique national identity numbers. The interviewing radiographer did the randomisation by entering the number into the software. Randomisation was done after consent and was therefore concealed from both the women and the radiographer at the time of consent; the algorithm was not disclosed to radiographers during the recruitment period. All data needed for analyses were complete 12 months after the recruitment period ended. The primary outcome measure was screen-detected breast cancer, stratified by screening technique (ie, digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography). A log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography, defined as the crude risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for screen-detected breast cancer for women screened during the recruitment period. A per-protocol approach was used in the analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02835625, and is closed to accrual.
FINDINGS: Between, Jan 14, 2016, and Dec 31, 2017, 44 266 women were invited to the screening programme in Bergen, and 32 976 (74·5%) attended. After excluding women with breast implants and women who did not consent to participate, 29 453 (89·3%) were eligible for electronic randomisation. 14 734 women were allocated to digital breast tomosynthesis and 14 719 to digital mammography. After randomisation, women with a previous breast cancer were excluded (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=314, digital mammography group n=316), women with metastases from melanoma (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=1), and women who informed the radiographer about breast symptoms after providing consent (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=39, digital mammography group n=34). After exclusions, information from 28 749 women were included in the analyses (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=14 380, digital mammography group n=14 369). The proportion of screen-detected breast cancer among the screened women did not differ between the two groups (95 [0·66%, 0·53-0·79] of 14 380 vs 87 [0·61%, 0·48-0·73] of 14 369; RR 1·09, 95% CI 0·82-1·46; p=0·56).
INTERPRETATION: This study indicated that digital breast tomosynthesis including synthetic 2D mammograms was not significantly different from standard digital mammography as a screening tool for the detection of breast cancer in a population-based screening programme. Economic analyses and follow-up studies on interval and consecutive round screen-detected breast cancers are needed to better understand the effect of digital breast tomosynthesis in population-based breast cancer screening. FUNDING: Cancer Registry of Norway, Department of Radiology at Haukeland University Hospital, University of Oslo, and Research Council of Norway.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31078459     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30161-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  14 in total

1.  Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities.

Authors:  Sarah J Nyante; Linn Abraham; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Christoph I Lee; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 4.090

2.  Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the United States.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; William E Barlow; Elizabeth S Burnside; Emily F Conant; John M Hampton; Hui Huang; Karla Kerlikowske; Sandra J Lee; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Martin J Yaffe; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mostafa Alabousi; Akshay Wadera; Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita; Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa; Jean-Paul Salameh; Alex Pozdnyakov; Nanxi Zha; Lucy Samoilov; Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; Behnam Sadeghirad; Vivianne Freitas; Matthew Df McInnes; Abdullah Alabousi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old.

Authors:  Ilana B Richman; Jessica B Long; Jessica R Hoag; Akhil Upneja; Regina Hooley; Xiao Xu; Natalia Kunst; Jenerius A Aminawung; Kelly A Kyanko; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 11.816

5.  Breast Density Notification: An Australian Perspective.

Authors:  Wendy V Ingman; Bernadette Richards; Jacqueline M Street; Drew Carter; Mary Rickard; Jennifer Stone; Pallave Dasari
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rodrigo Rosa Giampietro; Marcos Vinicius Gama Cabral; Silvana Andrea Molina Lima; Silke Anna Theresa Weber; Vania Dos Santos Nunes-Nogueira
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Xuan-Anh Phi; Marcel J W Greuter; Alicja M Daszczuk; Talitha L Feenstra; Ruud M Pijnappel; Karin M Vermeulen; Nico Buls; Nehmat Houssami; Wenli Lu; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Effectiveness of Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in the Diagnosis of Suspicious Lesions for Breast Cancer in an Asymptomatic Population.

Authors:  Lourdes Noemi Santos Aragon; Dafne Soto-Trujillo
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-03-11

9.  Costs and Effects of Implementing Digital Tomosynthesis in a Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening Program: Predictions Using Results from the To-Be Trial in Norway.

Authors:  Tron Anders Moger; Åsne Holen; Berit Hanestad; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-07-07

10.  The Usefulness of Spectral Mammography in Surgical Planning of Breast Cancer Treatment-Analysis of 999 Patients with Primary Operable Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Andrzej Lorek; Katarzyna Steinhof-Radwańska; Anna Barczyk-Gutkowska; Wojciech Zarębski; Piotr Paleń; Karol Szyluk; Joanna Lorek; Anna Grażyńska; Paweł Niemiec; Iwona Gisterek
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 3.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.