1. Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Tumor Characteristics in the Prospective Population-based Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
- Author
-
Ingvar Andersson, Kristin Johnson, Kristina Lång, Debra M. Ikeda, Sophia Zackrisson, and Anna Åkesson
- Subjects
Oncology ,Adult ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Digital mammography ,Breast Neoplasms ,Population based ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Breast cancer ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,Mass Screening ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Breast tomosynthesis ,Prospective Studies ,Prospective cohort study ,Early Detection of Cancer ,Aged ,Sweden ,business.industry ,Screening Trial ,Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Clinical trial ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Female ,business ,Mammography - Abstract
Background Interval cancer rates can be used to evaluate whether screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) contributes to a screening benefit. Purpose To compare interval cancer rates and tumor characteristics in DBT screening to those in a contemporary population screened with digital mammography (DM). Materials and Methods The prospective population-based Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) was designed to compare one-view DBT to two-view DM in breast cancer detection. The interval cancer rates and cancer characteristics in the MBTST were compared with an age-matched contemporary control group, screened with two-view DM at the same center. Conditional logistic regression was used for data analysis. Results There were 14 848 women who were screened with DBT and DM in the MBTST between January 2010 and February 2015. The trial women were matched with two women of the same age and screening occasion at DM screening during the same period. Matches for 13 369 trial women (mean age, 56 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were found with 26 738 women in the control group (mean age, 56 years ± 10). The interval cancer rate in the MBTST was 1.6 per 1000 screened women (21 of 13 369; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.4) compared with 2.8 per 1000 screened women in the control group (76 of 26 738 [95% CI: 2.2, 3.6]; conditional odds ratio, 0.6 [95% CI: 0.3, 0.9]
- Published
- 2021