Pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for population-based screening in BreastScreen Victoria

被引:26
|
作者
Houssami, Nehmat [1 ]
Lockie, Darren [2 ]
Clemson, Michelle [2 ]
Pridmore, Vicki [3 ]
Taylor, David [4 ]
Marr, Georgina [3 ]
Evans, Jill [3 ]
Macaskill, Petra [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sydney Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Eastern Hlth Breast & Canc Ctr, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] BreastScreen Victoria, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Box Hill Hosp, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
Breast neoplasms; Mass screening; Mammography;
D O I
10.5694/mja2.50320
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:357 / 362
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening
    Holland, Katharina
    Sechopoulos, Ioannis
    Mann, Ritse M.
    den Heeten, Gerard J.
    van Gils, Carla H.
    Karssemeijer, Nico
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 19
  • [42] 3D digital breast tomosynthesis versus US in evaluating breast asymmetries
    Omnia Mokhtar
    Sahar Abd elsalam
    Gehan Gamal
    Eman Naguib
    Manal Gomaa
    Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 51
  • [43] Breast Radiation Exposure of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Full-Field Digital Mammography in a Clinical Follow-Up Setting
    Opitz, Marcel
    Zensen, Sebastian
    Breuckmann, Katharina
    Bos, Denise
    Forsting, Michael
    Hoffmann, Oliver
    Stuschke, Martin
    Wetter, Axel
    Guberina, Nika
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2022, 12 (02)
  • [44] Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Hofvind, Solveig
    Soerensen, Anne L.
    Robledo, Kristy P.
    Hunter, Kylie
    Bernardi, Daniela
    Lang, Kristina
    Johnson, Kristin
    Aglen, Camilla F.
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    ECLINICALMEDICINE, 2021, 34
  • [45] Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading - Evidence to guide future screening strategies
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Macaskill, Petra
    Bernardi, Daniela
    Caumo, Francesca
    Pellegrini, Marco
    Brunelli, Silvia
    Tuttobene, Paola
    Bricolo, Paola
    Fanto, Carmine
    Valentini, Marvi
    Ciatto, Stefano
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2014, 50 (10) : 1799 - 1807
  • [46] Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening
    Hodgson, Robert
    Heywang-Koebrunner, Sylvia H.
    Harvey, Susan C.
    Edwards, Mary
    Shaikh, Javed
    Arber, Mick
    Glanville, Julie
    BREAST, 2016, 27 : 52 - 61
  • [47] Artificial intelligence (AI) for breast cancer screening: BreastScreen population-based cohort study of cancer detection
    Marinovich, M. Luke
    Wylie, Elizabeth
    Lotter, William
    Lund, Helen
    Waddell, Andrew
    Madeley, Carolyn
    Pereira, Gavin
    Houssami, Nehmat
    EBIOMEDICINE, 2023, 90
  • [48] Effect of organized mammography screening on breast cancer mortality: A population-based cohort study in Norway
    Moller, Mette H.
    Lousdal, Mette Lise
    Kristiansen, Ivar S.
    Stovring, Henrik
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2019, 144 (04) : 697 - 706
  • [49] An individual participant data meta-analysis of breast cancer detection and recall rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening
    Libesman, Sol
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    Hofvind, Solveig
    Seidler, Anna Lene
    Bernardi, Daniela
    Lang, Kristina
    Robledo, Kristy P.
    Houssami, Nehmat
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2022, 22 (05) : E647 - E654
  • [50] Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway
    Moger, Tron Anders
    Swanson, Jayson O.
    Holen, Asne Sorlien
    Hanestad, Berit
    Hofvind, Solveig
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2019, 20 (08) : 1261 - 1269