Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial

被引:102
|
作者
Pattacini, Pierpaolo [1 ]
Nitrosi, Andrea [2 ]
Rossi, Paolo Giorgi [3 ]
Iotti, Valentina [1 ]
Ginocchi, Vladimiro [1 ]
Ravaioli, Sara [1 ]
Vacondio, Rita [1 ]
Braglia, Luca [4 ]
Cavuto, Silvio [4 ]
Campari, Cinzia [5 ]
机构
[1] AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Radiol Unit, Via Amendola 2, I-42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
[2] AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Med Phys Unit, Via Amendola 2, I-42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
[3] AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Epidemiol Unit, Via Amendola 2, I-42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
[4] AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Sci Directorate, Via Amendola 2, I-42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
[5] AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Screening Coordinating Ctr, Via Amendola 2, I-42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
关键词
CARCINOMA IN-SITU; 3D MAMMOGRAPHY; PERFORMANCE; PROGRAM; EUROPE; RECALL; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2018172119
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
Purpose: To compare digital mammography (DM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus DM alone for breast cancer screening in the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis trial, a two-arm test-and-treat randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: For this trial, eligible women (45-70 years old) who previously participated in the Reggio Emilia screening program were invited for mammography. Consenting women were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo DBT+DM or DM (both of which involved two projections and double reading). Women were treated according to the decision at DBT+DM. Sensitivity, recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) at baseline were determined; the ratios of these rates for DBT+DM relative to DM alone were determined. Results: From March 2014 to March 2016, 9777 women were recruited to the DM+DBT arm of the study, and 9783 women were recruited to the DM arm (mean age, 56.2 vs 56.3 years). Recall was 3.5% in both arms; detection was 4.5 per 1000 (44 of 9783) and 8.6 per 1000 (83 of 9777), respectively (+89%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 31, 72). PPV of the recall was 13.0% and 24.1%, respectively (P=.0002); 72 of 80 cancers found in the DBT+DM arm and with complete DBT imaging were positive at least at one DBT-alone reading. The greater detection rate for DM+DBT was stronger for ductal carcinoma in situ (+180%, 95% CI: 1, 665); it was notable for small and medium invasive cancers, but not for large ones (+94 [95% CI: 6, 254]; +122 [95% CI: 18, 316]; 212 [95% CI: 268, 141]; for invasive cancers, 10 mm, 10-19 mm, and. 20 mm, respectively). Conclusion: DBT+DM depicts 90% more cancers in a population previously screened with DM, with similar recall rates. (c) RSNA, 2018
引用
收藏
页码:375 / 385
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
    Skaane, Per
    Bandos, Andriy L.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Osteras, Bjorn H.
    Gullien, Randi
    Gur, David
    Hofvind, Solveig
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (01) : 22 - 29
  • [2] Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening
    Haas, Brian M.
    Kalra, Vivek
    Geisel, Jaime
    Raghu, Madhavi
    Durand, Melissa
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (03) : 694 - 700
  • [3] Interval cancer in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone
    Pulido-Carmona, Cristina
    Romero-Martin, Sara
    Raya-Povedano, Jose Luis
    Cara-Garcia, Maria
    Font-Ugalde, Pilar
    Elias-Cabot, Esperanza
    Pedrosa-Garriguet, Margarita
    Alvarez-Benito, Marina
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (8) : 5427 - 5438
  • [4] Breast Cancer Screening With Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography
    Seidenwurm, David
    Rosenberg, Robert
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 312 (16): : 1695 - 1695
  • [5] Local Tumor Staging of Breast Cancer: Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis
    Fontaine, Marion
    Tourasse, Christophe
    Pages, Emmanuelle
    Laurent, Nicolas
    Laffargue, Guillaume
    Millet, Ingrid
    Molinari, Nicolas
    Taourel, Patrice
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (03) : 594 - 603
  • [6] Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography
    Lai, Yi-Chen
    Ray, Kimberly M.
    Lee, Amie Y.
    Hayward, Jessica H.
    Freimanis, Rita I.
    Lobach, Iryna V.
    Joe, Bonnie N.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (03) : 630 - 638
  • [7] BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS OR DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING?
    Svahn, Tony
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS IN THE BALTIC STATES, 2011, : 53 - 56
  • [8] Breast Cancer Detection: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Mammography versus Digital Mammography
    Ha, Su Min
    Chang, Jung Min
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 309 (03)
  • [9] Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography
    Alsheik, Nila
    Blount, Linda
    Qiong, Qiu
    Talley, Melinda
    Pohlman, Scott
    Troeger, Kathleen
    Abbey, Genevieve
    Mango, Victoria L.
    Pollack, Erica
    Chong, Alice
    Donadio, Greg
    Behling, Michael
    Mortimer, Kathleen
    Conant, Emily
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 18 (07) : 906 - 918
  • [10] Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis
    Cohen, Ethan O.
    Weaver, Olena O.
    Tso, Hilda H.
    Gerlach, Karen E.
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 58 (03) : 470 - 472