Breast Density and Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A TOSYMA Trial Subanalysis

被引:30
作者
Weigel, Stefanie [1 ,2 ]
Heindel, Walter [1 ,2 ]
Hense, Hans-Werner [3 ]
Decker, Thomas [1 ,2 ]
Gerss, Joachim [4 ]
Kerschke, Laura [4 ]
TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Grp
机构
[1] Univ Munster, Reference Ctr Mammog Munster, TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Grp Clin Radiol, Albert Schweitzer Campus 1,Bldg A1, D-48149 Munster, Germany
[2] Univ Hosp Munster, Albert Schweitzer Campus 1,Bldg A1, D-48149 Munster, Germany
[3] Univ Munster, Inst Epidemiol & Social Med, Munster, Germany
[4] Univ Munster, Inst Biostat & Clin Res, Munster, Germany
关键词
MAMMOGRAPHY; INTERVAL; WOMEN; RISK; EUROPE;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.221006
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized mammography (SM) reduces the diagnostic pitfalls of tissue su-perimposition, which is a limitation of digital mammography (DM). Purpose: To compare the invasive breast cancer detection rate (iCDR) of DBT plus SM versus DM screening for different breast density categories.Materials and Methods: An exploratory subanalysis of the TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) study, a randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel-group trial recruited within the German mammography screening program from July 2018 to December 2020. Women aged 50-69 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBT plus SM or DM screening examination. Breast density categories A-D were visually assessed according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. Exploratory analyses were performed of the iCDR in both study arms and stratified by breast density, and odds ratios and 95% CIs were determined.Results: A total of 49 762 women allocated to DBT plus SM and 49 796 allocated to DM (median age, 57 years [IQR, 53-62 years]) were included. In the DM arm, the iCDR was 3.6 per 1000 screening examinations in category A (almost entirely fatty) (16 of 4475 screenings), 4.3 in category B (102 of 23 534 screenings), 6.1 in category C (116 of 19 051 screenings), and 2.3 in category D (extremely dense breasts) (six of 2629 screenings). The iCDR in the DBT plus SM arm was 2.7 per 1000 screening examinations in category A (12 of 4439 screenings), 6.9 in category B (154 of 22 328 screenings), 8.3 in category C (156 of 18 772 screenings), and 8.1 in category D (32 of 3940 screenings). The odds ratio for DM versus DBT plus SM in category D was 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5, 11.1). The invasive cancers detected with DBT plus SM were most often grade 2 tumors; in category C, it was 58% (91 of 156 in-vasive cancers), and in category D, it was 47% (15 of 32 invasive cancers).Conclusion: The TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography trial revealed higher invasive cancer detection rates with digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography than digital mammography in dense breasts, relatively and absolutely most marked among women with extremely dense breasts.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Hruska, Carrie B.
    Rahbar, Habib
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 216 (02) : 275 - 294
  • [2] Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer
    Boyd, Norman F.
    Guo, Helen
    Martin, Lisa J.
    Sun, Limei
    Stone, Jennifer
    Fishell, Eve
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Hislop, Greg
    Chiarelli, Anna
    Minkin, Salomon
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) : 227 - 236
  • [3] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program
    Caumo, Francesca
    Zorzi, Manuel
    Brunelli, Silvia
    Romanucci, Giovanna
    Rella, Rossella
    Cugola, Loredana
    Bricolo, Paola
    Fedato, Chiara
    Montemezzi, Stefania
    Houssami, Nehmat
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (01) : 37 - 46
  • [4] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice
    Chong, Alice
    Weinstein, Susan P.
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 292 (01) : 1 - 14
  • [5] Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening
    Comstock, Christopher E.
    Gatsonis, Constantine
    Newstead, Gillian M.
    Snyder, Bradley S.
    Gareen, Ilana F.
    Bergin, Jennifer T.
    Rahbar, Habib
    Sung, Janice S.
    Jacobs, Christina
    Harvey, Jennifer A.
    Nicholson, Mary H.
    Ward, Robert C.
    Holt, Jacqueline
    Prather, Andrew
    Miller, Kathy D.
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Kuhl, Christiane K.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 323 (08): : 746 - 756
  • [6] D'Orsi C.J., 2003, Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) breast imaging atlas
  • [7] DOrsi CJ, 2013, ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system
  • [8] mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, follow-up and outcome monitoring, data dictionary
  • [9] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice
    Gap, Yiming
    May, Linda
    Heller, Samantha L.
    [J]. RADIOGRAPHICS, 2021, 41 (02) : 321 - 337
  • [10] Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial
    Heindel, Walter
    Weigel, Stefanie
    Gerss, Joachim
    Hense, Hans-Werner
    Sommer, Alexander
    Krischke, Miriam
    Kerschke, Laura
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2022, 23 (05) : 601 - 611