Advanced

Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway

Hovda, Tone ; Holen, Åsne S. ; Lång, Kristina LU ; Albertsen, Judy Lynn ; Bjørndal, Hilde ; Brandal, Siri H. B. ; Sahlberg, Kristine Kleivi ; Skaane, Per ; Suhrke, Pål and Hofvind, Solveig (2020) In Radiology 294(2). p.256-264
Abstract
Background: Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose: To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015... (More)
Background: Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose: To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015 (baseline). All women, except nonattendees, women with breast cancer, and those who exceeded the upper age limit, were consecutively screened with DM after 2 years. Interval breast cancer, sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for women screened at baseline. Recall, screen-detected breast cancer, and positive predictive value were analyzed for consecutively screened women. A χ2 test, t test (P < .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a significant difference), and binomial regression model were used to analyze differences across groups. Results: A total of 92 404 women who underwent baseline screening (mean age, 59 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) were evaluated; 34 641 women in the study group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DBT and SM and 57 763 women in the control group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DM. A total of 26 474 women in the study group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) and 45 543 women in the control group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) were consecutively screened with DM. Rates of interval breast cancer were 2.0 per 1000 screened women in the study group and 1.5 per 1000 screened women in the control group (P = .12). No differences in histopathologic characteristics of interval breast cancer were observed. In the consecutive screening round, rates of screen-detected breast cancer were 3.9 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Rates of histologic grade 1 invasive cancer were 0.5 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 1.3 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Conclusion: No differences in interval breast cancer rates or tumor characteristics were observed in women screened with DBT and SM compared with women screened with DM. Higher rates of low-grade screen-detected tumors were observed in the control group at consecutive screening. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Radiology
volume
294
issue
2
pages
9 pages
publisher
Radiological Society of North America
external identifiers
  • pmid:31821118
  • scopus:85078537915
ISSN
1527-1315
DOI
10.1148/radiol.2019191337
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
a4345d06-684a-4809-99d4-4bd34f51b527
date added to LUP
2019-12-13 08:36:34
date last changed
2020-02-12 10:18:37
@article{a4345d06-684a-4809-99d4-4bd34f51b527,
  abstract     = {Background: Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose: To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015 (baseline). All women, except nonattendees, women with breast cancer, and those who exceeded the upper age limit, were consecutively screened with DM after 2 years. Interval breast cancer, sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for women screened at baseline. Recall, screen-detected breast cancer, and positive predictive value were analyzed for consecutively screened women. A χ2 test, t test (P &lt; .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a significant difference), and binomial regression model were used to analyze differences across groups. Results: A total of 92 404 women who underwent baseline screening (mean age, 59 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) were evaluated; 34 641 women in the study group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DBT and SM and 57 763 women in the control group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DM. A total of 26 474 women in the study group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) and 45 543 women in the control group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) were consecutively screened with DM. Rates of interval breast cancer were 2.0 per 1000 screened women in the study group and 1.5 per 1000 screened women in the control group (P = .12). No differences in histopathologic characteristics of interval breast cancer were observed. In the consecutive screening round, rates of screen-detected breast cancer were 3.9 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Rates of histologic grade 1 invasive cancer were 0.5 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 1.3 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Conclusion: No differences in interval breast cancer rates or tumor characteristics were observed in women screened with DBT and SM compared with women screened with DM. Higher rates of low-grade screen-detected tumors were observed in the control group at consecutive screening.},
  author       = {Hovda, Tone and Holen, Åsne S. and Lång, Kristina and Albertsen, Judy Lynn  and Bjørndal, Hilde  and Brandal,  Siri H. B.  and Sahlberg, Kristine Kleivi  and Skaane, Per and Suhrke,  Pål  and Hofvind, Solveig},
  issn         = {1527-1315},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {256--264},
  publisher    = {Radiological Society of North America},
  series       = {Radiology},
  title        = {Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191337},
  doi          = {10.1148/radiol.2019191337},
  volume       = {294},
  year         = {2020},
}