Top

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Clinical trial

Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

Authors: Per Skaane, Sofie Sebuødegård, Andriy I. Bandos, David Gur, Bjørn Helge Østerås, Randi Gullien, Solveig Hofvind

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to overcome limitations of conventional mammography. This study investigated the effects of addition of DBT on interval and detected cancers in population-based screening.

Methods

Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) was a prospective, independent double-reading trial inviting women 50–69 years biennially, comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT with FFDM alone. Performance indicators and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared with two previous FFDM rounds.

Results

24,301 consenting women underwent FFDM + DBT screening over a 2-year period. Results were compared with 59,877 FFDM examinations during prior rounds. Addition of DBT resulted in a non-significant increase in sensitivity (76.2%, 378/496, vs. 80.8%, 227/281, p = 0.151) and a significant increase in specificity (96.4%, 57229/59381 vs. 97.5%, 23427/24020, p < .001). Number of recalls per screen-detected cancer decreased from 6.7 (2530/378) to 3.6 (820/227) with DBT (p < .001). Cancer detection per 1000 women screened increased (6.3, 378/59877, vs. 9.3, 227/24301, p < .001). Interval cancer rate per 1000 screens for FFDM + DBT remained similar to previous FFDM rounds (2.1, 51/24301 vs. 2.0, 118/59877, p = 0.734). Interval cancers post-DBT were comparable to prior rounds but significantly different in size, grade, and node status from cancers detected only using DBT. 39.6% (19/48) of interval cancers had positive nodes compared with only 3.9% (2/51) of additional DBT-only-detected cancers.

Conclusions

DBT-supplemented screening resulted in significant increases in screen-detected cancers and specificity. However, no significant change was observed in the rate, size, node status, or grade of interval cancers.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01248546.

Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663CrossRefPubMed

Njor S, Nystrom L, Moss S et al (2012) Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):33–41CrossRefPubMed

Massat NJ, Dibden A, Parmar D et al (2016) Impact of screening on breast cancer mortality. The UK program 20 years on. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 25:455–462CrossRef

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed

Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:109–116CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed

Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190CrossRefPubMed

Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts. JAMA 315:1784–1786CrossRefPubMed

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hofvind S, Skaane P, Elmore JG, Sebuodegard S, Hoff SR, Lee CI (2014) Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography. Radiology 272:52–62CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical test for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

13.

Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 277:697–706CrossRefPubMed

14.

Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, Ellis IO, Cornford E (2006) Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? Am J Roentgenol AJR 187:1377–1380CrossRef

15.

Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA (2000) Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol 55:40–44CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterizing invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 71:889–895CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J 21:538–542CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bustreo S, Osella-Abate S, Cassoni P et al (2016) Optimal Ki67 cut-off for luminal breast cancer prognostic evaluation: a large case series study with a long-term follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157:363–371CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Healey MA, Hirko KA, Beck AH, et al. Assessment of Ki67 for breast cancer subtype classification and prognosis in the Nurses’ Health Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4421-3

20.

Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJT et al (2014) Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144:103–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJT et al (2011) Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:725–734CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Hayse B, Hooley RJ, Killelea BK et al (2016) Breast cancer biology varies by method of detection and may contribute to overdiagnosis. Surgery 160:454–462CrossRefPubMed

23.

McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743CrossRefPubMed

24.

Wang W-S, Hardesty L, Borgstede J et al (2016) Breast cancers found with digital breast tomosynthesis: a comparison of pathology and histologic grade. Breast J 22:651–656CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kim JY, Kang HJ, Shin JK et al (2017) Biologic profile of invasive breast cancers detected only with digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol AJR 209:1–8CrossRef

26.

Morris E, Feig SA, Drexler M, Lehman C (2015) Implications of overdiagnosis: impact on screening mammography practices. Popul Health Manag 18:S3–S11CrossRefPubMed

Title: Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
Authors: Per Skaane
Sofie Sebuødegård
Andriy I. Bandos
David Gur
Bjørn Helge Østerås
Randi Gullien
Solveig Hofvind
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Influence of control group therapy on the benefit from dose-dense chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Physical activity during adolescence and young adulthood and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Cell growth inhibition and apoptosis in breast cancer cells induced by anti-FZD7 scFvs: involvement of bioinformatics-based design of novel epitopes

Factors associated with improved outcomes for metastatic inflammatory breast cancer patients

Association between financial burden and adjuvant hormonal therapy adherence and persistent use for privately insured women aged 18–64 years in BCBS of Texas

Patient-reported predictors of early treatment discontinuation: treatment-related symptoms and health-related quality of life among postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer randomized to anastrozole or exemestane on NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CCTG) MA.27 (E1Z03)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer