Search

Abstract Purpose Tomosynthesis is proposed to improve breast cancer assessment and staging. We compared tomosynthesis and mammography in estimating the size of newly-diagnosed breast cancers. Methods All pathologically-confirmed cancers detected in the STORM-2 trial (90 cancers, 85 women) were retrospectively measured on tomosynthesis by two independent readers. One reader also measured cancers on mammography. Relative mean differences (MDs) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) with pathology were estimated for tomosynthesis and mammography within a single reader (Analysis 1) and between two readers (Analysis 2). Results Where cancers were detected and hence measured by both tests, tomosynthesis overestimated pathologic size relative to mammography (Analysis 1: MD 5% versus 1%, Analysis 2: 7% versus 3%; P = 0.10 both analyses). There was similar, large measurement variability for both tests (LOA range: −60% to +166%). Overestimation by tomosynthesis was attributable to the subgroup with dense breasts (MDs = 12–13% versus 4% for mammography). There was low average bias for both tests in the low-density subgroup (MDs = 0–4%). LOA were larger in dense breasts for both tomosynthesis and mammography (P ≤ 0.02 all comparisons). Cancers detected only by tomosynthesis were more frequently in dense breasts (60–68%): for those tumours size was estimated with increased measurement variability (LOA ranging from −75% to +293%). Conclusions On average, tomosynthesis overestimates pathologic tumour size in women with dense breasts; that difference is more likely to impact management in women with larger tumours. The main advantage of tomosynthesis appears to be detecting mammographically-occult cancers; however tomosynthesis less accurately measured those cancers in dense breasts (large measurement variability). Highlights • Tumour size was overestimated by tomosynthesis relative to mammography. • Overestimation was attributable to the subgroup with high breast density. • There was low average bias for both tests in the low-density subgroup. • Cancers detected only by tomosynthesis were measured with large variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tomosynthesis approximates a 3D mammogram of the breast, reducing parenchymal overlap that masks cancers or creates false "lesions" on 2D mammography, and potentially enabling more accurate detection of breast cancer. We compared breast cancer screening detection and recall in asymptomatic women for tomosynthesis vs 2D mammography.Methods: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken. Electronic databases (2009-July 2017) were searched for studies comparing tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in asymptomatic women who attended population breast cancer screening and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall rate. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: Seventeen studies (1 009 790 participants) were included from 413 citations. The pooled incremental CDR for tomosynthesis was 1.6 cancers per 1000 screens (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.0, P < .001, I2 = 36.9%). Incremental CDR was statistically significantly higher for European/Scandinavian studies, all using a "paired" design where women had both tests (2.4 per 1000 screens, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.9, P < .001, I2 = 0.0%) compared with US ("unpaired") studies (1.1 per 1000 screens, 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.5, P < .001, I2 = 0.0%; P < .001 between strata). The recall rate for tomosynthesis was statistically significantly lower than for 2D mammography (pooled absolute reduction = -2.2%, 95% CI = -3.0 to -1.4, P < .001, I2 = 98.2%). Stratified analyses showed a decrease in US studies (pooled difference in recall rate = -2.9%, 95% CI = -3.5 to -2.4, P < .001, I2 = 92.9%) but not European/Scandinavian studies (0.5% increase in recall, 95% CI = -0.1 to 1.2, P = .12, I2 = 93.5%; P < .001 between strata). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses excluding studies with overlapping cohorts.Conclusions: Tomosynthesis improves CDR and reduces recall; however, effects are dependent on screening setting, with greater improvement in CDR in European/Scandinavian studies (biennial screening) and reduction in recall in US studies with high baseline recall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Tomosynthesis is proposed to improve breast cancer assessment and staging as a complementary role to its detection capability. We examine the accuracy of tomosynthesis in measuring tumor size relative to pathology and compared with other tests. Areas covered: A systematic literature search identified studies of tomosynthesis in estimating the size of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Descriptive analyses were performed due to heterogeneity in patients, technology, and methods between studies. Eight studies were eligible (678 patients). Mean differences (MDs) between measurements (tomosynthesis-pathology) were generally small; overestimation (MDs of 1-3 mm) and underestimation (−1 mm) were reported. Limits of agreement (LOA) ranged between ±10 mm and ±28 mm. MDs did not differ in high and low breast densities. Large underestimation (−11 mm) and wide LOA (±41 mm) were reported for invasive lobular carcinoma. MDs and LOA were lower for tomosynthesis than mammography, but differences between tests were small. Expert commentary: Although tomosynthesis is a promising technology for assessing breast cancer size, few studies in that context had limitations (small sample sizes, heterogeneous populations, and technologies). Studies using current technology and appropriate statistical methods are required to establish the magnitude of improvement in measurement accuracy, and patients for whom the test may be of most benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & methods The prospective ‘ s creening with t omosynthesis or standard m ammography’ (STORM) trial recruited women participating in biennial breast screening in Italy (2011–2012), and compared sequential screen-readings based on 2D-mammography alone or based on tomosynthesis (integrated 2D/3D-mammography). The STORM trial showed that tomosynthesis screen-reading significantly increased breast cancer detection compared to 2D-mammography alone. The present study completes reporting of the trial by examining interval breast cancers ascertained at two year follow-up. Results 9 interval breast cancers were identified; the estimated interval cancer rate was 1.23/1000 screens [9/7292] (95%CI 0.56 to 2.34) or 1.24/1000 negative screens [9/7235] (95%CI 0.57 to 2.36). In concurrently screened women who attended the same screening services and received 2D-mammography, interval cancer rate was 1.60/1000 screens [40/25,058] (95% CI 1.14 to 2.17) or 1.61/1000 negative screens [40/24,922] (95% CI 1.15 to 2.18). Estimated screening sensitivity for the STORM trial was 85.5% [59/69] (95%CI 75.0%–92.8%), and that for 2D-mammography screening was 77.3% [136/176] (95%CI 70.4%–83.2%). Conclusion Interval breast cancer rate amongst screening participants in the STORM trial was marginally lower (and screening sensitivity higher) than estimates amongst 2D-screened women; these findings should be interpreted with caution given the small number of interval cases and the sample size of the trial. Much larger screening studies, or pooled analyses, are required to examine interval cancer rates arising after breast tomosynthesis screening versus digital mammography screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast tomosynthesis (pseudo-3D mammography) improves breast cancer detection when added to 2D mammography. In this study, we examined whether integrating 3D mammography with either standard 2D mammography acquisitions or with synthetic 2D images (reconstructed from 3D mammography) would detect more cases of breast cancer than 2D mammography alone, to potentially reduce the radiation burden from the combination of 2D plus 3D acquisitions.Methods: The Screening with Tomosynthesis Or standard Mammography-2 (STORM-2) study was a prospective population-based screening study comparing integrated 3D mammography (dual-acquisition 2D-3D mammography or 2D synthetic-3D mammography) with 2D mammography alone. Asymptomatic women aged 49 years or older who attended population-based screening in Trento, Italy were recruited for the study. All participants underwent digital mammography with 2D and 3D mammography acquisitions, with the use of software that allowed synthetic 2D mammographic images to be reconstructed from 3D acquisitions. Mammography screen-reading was done in two parallel double-readings conducted sequentially for 2D acquisitions followed by integrated acquisitions. Recall based on a positive mammography result was defined as recall at any screen read. Primary outcome measures were a comparison between integrated (2D-3D or 2D synthetic-3D) mammography and 2D mammography alone of the number of cases of screen-detected breast cancer, the cancer detection rate per 1000 screens, the incremental cancer detection rate, and the number and percentage of false-positive recalls.Findings: Between May 31, 2013, and May 29, 2015, 10 255 women were invited to participate, of whom 9672 agreed to participate and were screened. In these 9672 participants (median age 58 years [IQR 53-63]), screening detected 90 cases of breast cancer, including 74 invasive breast cancers, in 85 women (five women had bilateral breast cancer). To account for these bilateral cancers in cancer detection rate estimates, the number of screens used for analysis was 9677. Both 2D-3D mammography (cancer detection rate 8·5 per 1000 screens [82 cancers detected in 9677 screens]; 95% CI 6·7-10·5) and 2D synthetic-3D mammography (8·8 per 1000 [85 in 9677]; 7·0-10·8) had significantly higher rates of breast cancer detection than 2D mammography alone (6·3 per 1000 [61 in 9677], 4·8-8·1; p<0·0001 for both comparisons). The cancer detection rate did not differ significantly between 2D-3D mammography and 2D synthetic-3D mammography (p=0·58). Compared with 2D mammography alone, the incremental cancer detection rate from 2D-3D mammography was 2·2 per 1000 screens (95% CI 1·2-3·3) and that from 2D synthetic-3D mammography was 2·5 per 1000 (1·4-3·8). Compared with the proportion of false-positive recalls from 2D mammography alone (328 of 9587 participants not found to have cancer at assessment) [3·42%; 95% CI 3·07-3·80]), false-positive recall was significantly higher for 2D-3D mammography (381 of 9587 [3·97%; 3·59-4·38], p=0·00063) and for 2D synthetic-3D mammography (427 of 9587 [4·45%; 4·05-4·89], p<0·0001).Interpretation: Integration of 3D mammography (2D-3D or 2D synthetic-3D) detected more cases of breast cancer than 2D mammography alone, but increased the percentage of false-positive recalls in sequential screen-reading. These results should be considered in the context of the trade-off between benefits and harms inherent in population breast cancer screening, including that significantly increased breast cancer detection from integrating 3D mammography into screening has the potential to augment screening benefit and also possibly contribute to overdiagnosis.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women require information about the impact of regularly attending screening mammography on breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis to make informed decisions. To provide this information we aimed to meta-analyse randomised controlled trials adjusted for adherence to the trial protocol.Methods: Nine screening mammography trials used in the Independent UK Breast Screening Report were selected. Extending an existing approach to adjust intention-to-treat (ITT) estimates for less than 100% adherence rates, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. This produced a combined deattenuated prevented fraction and a combined deattenuated percentage risk of overdiagnosis.Results: In women aged 39-75 years invited to screen, the prevented fraction of breast cancer mortality at 13-year follow-up was 0.22 (95% CI 0.15-0.28) and it increased to 0.30 (95% CI 0.18-0.42) with deattenuation. In women aged 40-69 years invited to screen, the ITT percentage risk of overdiagnosis during the screening period was 19.0% (95% CI 15.2-22.7%), deattenuation increased this to 29.7% (95% CI 17.8-41.5%).Conclusions: Adjustment for nonadherence increased the size of the mortality benefit and risk of overdiagnosis by up to 50%. These estimates are more appropriate when developing quantitative information to support individual decisions about attending screening mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide breast cancer surgery by measuring residual tumor size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Accurate measurement may avoid overly radical surgery or reduce the need for repeat surgery. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis examines MRI's agreement with pathology in measuring the longest tumor diameter and compares MRI with alternative tests.Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Heath Technology Assessment, and Cochrane databases identified eligible studies. Primary study authors supplied IPD in a template format constructed a priori. Mean differences (MDs) between tests and pathology (i.e. systematic bias) were calculated and pooled by the inverse variance method; limits of agreement (LOA) were estimated. Test measurements of 0.0 cm in the presence of pathologic residual tumor, and measurements >0.0 cm despite pathologic complete response (pCR) were described for MRI and alternative tests.Results: Eight studies contributed IPD (N = 300). The pooled MD for MRI was 0.0 cm (LOA: +/-3.8 cm). Ultrasound underestimated pathologic size (MD: -0.3 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.1 cm), with comparable LOA. MDs were similar for MRI (0.1 cm) and mammography (0.0 cm), with wider LOA for mammography. Clinical examination underestimated size (MD: -0.8 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.0 cm), with wider LOA. Tumors "missed" by MRI typically measured 2.0 cm or less at pathology; tumors >2.0 cm were more commonly "missed" by clinical examination (9.3 %). MRI measurements >5.0 cm occurred in 5.3 % of patients with pCR, but were more frequent for mammography (46.2 %).Conclusions: There was no systematic bias in MRI tumor measurement, but LOA are large enough to be clinically important. MRI's performance was generally superior to ultrasound, mammography, and clinical examination, and it may be considered the most appropriate test in this setting. Test combinations should be explored in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: We compared detection measures for breast screening strategies comprising single-reading or double-reading using standard 2D-mammography or 2D/3D-mammography, based on the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography’ (STORM) trial. Methods: STORM prospectively examined screen-reading in two sequential phases, 2D-mammography alone and integrated 2D/3D-mammography, in asymptomatic women participating in Trento and Verona (Northern Italy) population-based screening services. Outcomes were ascertained from assessment and/or excision histology or follow-up. For each screen-reading strategy we calculated the number of detected and non-detected (including interval) cancers, cancer detection rates (CDRs), false positive recall (FPR) measures and incremental CDR relative to a comparator strategy. We estimated the false:true positive (FP:TP) ratio and sensitivity of each mammography screening strategy. Paired binary data were compared using McNemar’s test. Results: Amongst 7292 screening participants, there were 65 (including six interval) breast cancers; estimated first-year interval cancer rate was 0.82/1000 screens (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–1.79/1000). For single-reading, 35 cancers were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D-mammography, 20 cancers were detected only with 2D/3D-mammography compared with none at 2D-mammography alone (p <0.001) and 10 cancers were not detected. For double-reading, 39 cancers were detected at 2D-mammography and 2D/3D-mammography, 20 were detected only with 2D/3D-mammography compared with none detected at 2D-mammography alone (p <0.001) and six cancers were not detected. The incremental CDR attributable to 2D/3D-mammography (versus 2D-mammography) of 2.7/1000 screens (95% CI: 1.6–4.2) was evident for single and for double-reading. Incremental CDR attributable to double-reading (versus single-reading) of 0.55/1000 screens (95% CI: −0.02–1.4) was evident for 2D-mammography and for 2D/3D-mammography. Estimated FP:TP ratios showed that 2D/3D-mammography screening strategies had more favourable FP to TP trade-off and higher sensitivity, applying single-reading or double-reading, relative to 2D-mammography screening. Conclusion: The evidence we report warrants rethinking of breast screening strategies and should be used to inform future evaluations of 2D/3D-mammography that assess whether or not the estimated incremental detection translates into improved screening outcomes such as a reduction in interval cancer rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background & objectives: Three-dimensional (3D)-mammography (tomosynthesis) may improve breast cancer detection. We examined centre-specific effect of integrated 2D/3D mammography based on the STORM (screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography) trial. Methods: Asymptomatic women who attended population-based screening through Trento and Verona screening centres were recruited into STORM, a prospective comparison of screen-reading in two sequential phases: 2D-mammography only and integrated 2D/3D mammography. Outcomes were the number and rates of detected cancers and of false positive recalls (FPR), and incremental cancer detection rate (CDR). Paired binary data were compared using Mc Nemar's test. Results: Of 33 cancers detected in Trento, 21 were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D screening, 12 cancers were detected only with integrated 2D/3D screening compared with none detected at 2D-only screening (P < 0.001). Of the 26 cancers detected in Verona, 18 were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D screening, 8 cancers were detected only with integrated 2D/3D screening compared with none detected at 2D-only screening (P = 0.008). There were no differences between centres in baseline CDR, and incremental CDR attributable to 3D-mammography was similar for Trento (2.8/1000 screens) and for Verona (2.6/1000 screens). Trento had 239 FPR (5.7% of screens): 103 FPR at both screen-readings, 93 FPR only at 2D-mammography compared with 43 FPR only at 2D/3D-mammography (p < 0.001). Verona had 156 FPR (5.2% of screens): 78 FPR at both screen-readings, 48 FPR only at 2D-mammography compared with 30 FPR only at 2D/3D-mammography (p = 0.054). Estimated reduction in FPR proportion had recall been conditional to 2D/3D-mammography-positivity differed between centres (21.0% versus 11.5%; P = 0.02). Conclusion: Integrated 2D/3D-mammography significantly increased cancer detection for both screening services; potential reduction in FPR is likely to differ between centres with those experiencing relatively higher FPR most likely to benefit from 2D/3D-mammography screening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background It has been proposed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be used to guide breast cancer surgery by differentiating residual tumor from pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This meta-analysis examines MRI accuracy in detecting residual tumor, investigates variables potentially affecting MRI performance, and compares MRI with other tests. Methods A systematic literature search was undertaken. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate (relative) diagnostic odds ratios ([R]DORs). Summary sensitivity (correct identification of residual tumor), specificity (correct identification of pCR), and areas under the SROC curves (AUCs) were derived. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Forty-four studies (2050 patients) were included.The overall AUC of MRI was 0.88. Accuracy was lower for "standard" pCR definitions (referent category) than "less clearly described" (RDOR = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 5.23) or "near-pCR" definitions (RDOR = 2.60, 95% CI = 0.73 to 9.24; P= .03.) Corresponding AUCs were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.91. Specificity was higher when negative MRI was defined as contrast enhancement less than or equal to normal tissue (0.83, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.93) vs no enhancement (0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.69; P= .02), with comparable sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; vs 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.92; P = .45). MRI had higher accuracy than mammography (P= .02); there was only weak evidence that MRI had higher accuracy than clinical examination (P= .10). No difference in MRI and ultrasound accuracy was found (P= .15). Conclusions MRI accurately detects residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Accuracy was lower when pCR was more rigorously defined, and specificity was lower when test negativity thresholds were more stringent; these definitions require standardization. MRI is more accurate than mammography; however, studies comparing MRI and ultrasound are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: We investigated the effect of integrating three-dimensional (3D)-mammography with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ detection measures in the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography’ (STORM) trial. Methods: STORM, a prospective population-based trial (Trento and Verona breast screening services) compared sequential screen-reading: 2D-mammography alone and integrated 2D/3D-mammography. Radiologist-specific detection measures were calculated for each screen-reading phase for eight radiologists: number of detected cancers, proportion of true-positive (TP) detection, and number and rate of false-positive (FP) recalls (FPR). We estimated the incremental cancer detection rate (CDR). Results: There were 59 cancers and 395 false recalls amongst 7292 screening participants. At 2D-mammography screening, radiologist-specific TP detection ranged between 38% and 83% (median 63%; mean 60% and sd 15.4%); at integrated 2D/3D-mammography, TP detection ranged between 78% and 93% (median 87%; mean 87% and sd 5.2%). For all but one radiologist, 2D/3D-mammography improved breast cancer detection (relative to 2D-mammography) ranging between 0% and 54% (median 29%; mean 27% and sd 16.2%) increase in the proportion of detected cancers. Incremental CDR attributable to integrating 3D-mammography in screening varied between 0/1000 and 5.3/1000 screens (median 1.8/1000; mean 2.3/1000 and sd 1.6/1000). Radiologist-specific FPR for 2D-mammography ranged between 1.5% and 4.2% (median 3.1%; mean 2.9% and sd 0.87%), and FPR based on the integrated 2D/3D-mammography read ranged between 1.0% and 3.3% (median 2.4%; mean 2.2% and sd 0.72%). Integrated 2D/3D-mammography screening, relative to 2D-mammography, had the effect of reducing FP and increasing TP detection for most radiologists. Conclusion: There was broad variability in radiologist-specific TP detection at 2D-mammography and hence in the additional TP detection and incremental CDR attributable to integrated 2D/3D-mammography; more consistent (less variable) TP-detection estimates were observed for the integrated screen-read. Integrating 3D-mammography with 2D-mammography improves radiologists’ screen-reading through improved cancer detection and/or reduced FPR, with most readers achieving both using integrated 2D/3D mammography. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: We previously reported the Screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography-2 (STORM-2) trial, showing that tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening detected more cancers than 2D-mammography in double-reading practice. In this study, we report reader-specific detection measures for radiologists who performed the screen-reading in this trial.Methods: This is a sub-study of the STORM-2 trial which prospectively integrated 3D-mammography with acquired or synthetized 2D-mammograms in parallel double-reading arms. Asymptomatic women ≥49 years who attended population-based screening (Trento, 2013-2015) were recruited. Screening participants were recalled at any positive sequential screen-read in either reading arm of the trial. Radiologist-specific detection measures were calculated for each of seven radiologists who performed screen-reads: number of detected cancers, proportion of true-positive (TP) detection, and number and rate of false-positive (FP) recalls (FPR). We estimated incremental cancer detection rate (CDR) from integrating 3D-mammography in screen-reading.Results: Across all radiologists, TP detection (relative sensitivity) ranged between: 46% and 100% (median 59.5%) for 2D-mammography; 75% and 100% (median 76%) for integrated 2D/3D-mammography screening; 56% and 76% (median 64%) for 2Dsynthetic; 67% and 88% (median 78%) for 2Dsynthetic/3D-mammography. Integrating 3D-mammography led to incremental CDRs between 0/1000 and 3.5/1000 screens. FPR ranged between: 1.2% and 2.7% (median 2.25%) for 2D-mammography; 1.5% and 3.4% (median 2.75%) for 2D/3D-mammography; 1.6% and 4.6% (median 2.4%) for 2Dsynthetic; and 1.8% and 6.7% (median 3.0%) for 2Dsynthetic/3D-mammography.Conclusions: There was variability in the magnitude of effect from integrating 3D-mammography (relative to screen-reading with acquired or synthesised 2D-mammography alone) on individual radiologist's TP and FP detection, although there was an overall pattern of increasing cancer detection and also increasing FP recall for most readers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]