OBJECTIVES: To estimate detection measures for tomosynthesis and standard mammography; to assess the feasibility of using tomosynthesis in population-based screening for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING: Prospective pilot trial comparing tomosynthesis (with synthesised 2D images) and standard mammography screening of women attending Maroondah BreastScreen, a BreastScreen Victoria service in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. PARTICIPANTS: Women at least 40 years of age who presented for routine breast screening between 18 August 2017 and 8 November 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection rate (CDR); proportion of screens that led to recall for further assessment. RESULTS: 5018 tomosynthesis and 5166 standard mammography screens were undertaken in 10 146 women; 508 women (5.0% of screens) opted not to undergo tomosynthesis screening. With tomosynthesis, 49 cancers (40 invasive, 9 in situ) were detected (CDR, 9.8 [95% CI, 7.2-13] per 1000 screens); with standard mammography, 34 cancers (30 invasive, 4 in situ) were detected (CDR, 6.6 [95% CI, 4.6-9.2] per 1000 screens). The estimated difference in CDR was 3.2 more detections (95% CI, -0.32 to 6.8) per 1000 screens with tomosynthesis; the difference was greater for repeat screens and for women aged 60 years or more. The recall rate was greater for tomosynthesis (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.6-4.8%) than standard mammography (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-3.5%; estimated difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, 0.46-1.9%). The median screen reading time for tomosynthesis was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 46-105 seconds); for standard mammography, 16 seconds (IQR, 10-29 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer detection, recall for assessment, and screen reading time were each higher for tomosynthesis than for standard mammography. Our preliminary findings could form the basis of a large scale comparative evaluation of tomosynthesis and standard mammography for breast screening in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000947303.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate detection measures for tomosynthesis and standard mammography; to assess the feasibility of using tomosynthesis in population-based screening for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING: Prospective pilot trial comparing tomosynthesis (with synthesised 2D images) and standard mammography screening of women attending Maroondah BreastScreen, a BreastScreen Victoria service in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. PARTICIPANTS: Women at least 40 years of age who presented for routine breast screening between 18 August 2017 and 8 November 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection rate (CDR); proportion of screens that led to recall for further assessment. RESULTS: 5018 tomosynthesis and 5166 standard mammography screens were undertaken in 10 146 women; 508 women (5.0% of screens) opted not to undergo tomosynthesis screening. With tomosynthesis, 49 cancers (40 invasive, 9 in situ) were detected (CDR, 9.8 [95% CI, 7.2-13] per 1000 screens); with standard mammography, 34 cancers (30 invasive, 4 in situ) were detected (CDR, 6.6 [95% CI, 4.6-9.2] per 1000 screens). The estimated difference in CDR was 3.2 more detections (95% CI, -0.32 to 6.8) per 1000 screens with tomosynthesis; the difference was greater for repeat screens and for women aged 60 years or more. The recall rate was greater for tomosynthesis (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.6-4.8%) than standard mammography (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-3.5%; estimated difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, 0.46-1.9%). The median screen reading time for tomosynthesis was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 46-105 seconds); for standard mammography, 16 seconds (IQR, 10-29 seconds). CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancer detection, recall for assessment, and screen reading time were each higher for tomosynthesis than for standard mammography. Our preliminary findings could form the basis of a large scale comparative evaluation of tomosynthesis and standard mammography for breast screening in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000947303.
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: 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
Authors: Naomi Noguchi; Michael L Marinovich; Elizabeth J Wylie; Helen G Lund; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 12.776