Search

Objectives: To estimate detection measures for tomosynthesis and standard mammography; to assess the feasibility of using tomosynthesis in population-based screening for breast cancer., Design, Setting: Prospective pilot trial comparing tomosynthesis (with synthesised 2D images) and standard mammography screening of women attending Maroondah BreastScreen, a BreastScreen Victoria service in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne., Participants: Women at least 40 years of age who presented for routine breast screening between 18 August 2017 and 8 November 2018., Main Outcome Measures: Cancer detection rate (CDR); proportion of screens that led to recall for further assessment., Results: 5018 tomosynthesis and 5166 standard mammography screens were undertaken in 10 146 women; 508 women (5.0% of screens) opted not to undergo tomosynthesis screening. With tomosynthesis, 49 cancers (40 invasive, 9 in situ) were detected (CDR, 9.8 [95% CI, 7.2-13] per 1000 screens); with standard mammography, 34 cancers (30 invasive, 4 in situ) were detected (CDR, 6.6 [95% CI, 4.6-9.2] per 1000 screens). The estimated difference in CDR was 3.2 more detections (95% CI, -0.32 to 6.8) per 1000 screens with tomosynthesis; the difference was greater for repeat screens and for women aged 60 years or more. The recall rate was greater for tomosynthesis (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.6-4.8%) than standard mammography (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-3.5%; estimated difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, 0.46-1.9%). The median screen reading time for tomosynthesis was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 46-105 seconds); for standard mammography, 16 seconds (IQR, 10-29 seconds)., Conclusions: Breast cancer detection, recall for assessment, and screen reading time were each higher for tomosynthesis than for standard mammography. Our preliminary findings could form the basis of a large scale comparative evaluation of tomosynthesis and standard mammography for breast screening in Australia., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000947303., (© 2019 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

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)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Verona population-based breast cancer (BC) screening program provides biennial mammography to women aged 50-69 years. Based on emerging evidence of enhanced detection, the program transitioned to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening., Methods: This is a prospective pilot evaluation of DBT with synthesised 2D mammography screening implemented during April 2015-March 2017; the rate and characteristics of cancers detected at DBT screening were compared with those detected at the preceding digital mammography (DM) screening round (April 2013-March 2015) in the same screening program. Distribution of imaging and tumour characteristics were compared., Results: Amongst 34,071 women screened in the Verona DBT pilot, 315 BCs were detected; 153 BCs were detected amongst 29,360 women in the DM screening round. Estimated CDRs were 9.2/1000 (95% CI 8.3-10.3) DBT screens versus 5.2/1000 (95% CI 4.4-6.1) DM screens, P < 0.001. Statistically significant differences were found in the distribution of whether recall by one/both screen readers (more BCs recalled by both readers at DBT than DM); whether detected on one/two views (higher proportion detected on only one view at DBT than DM); type of radiological lesions; tumour stage, pT and histological categories (lower proportion of DCIS/pTis, higher proportions of pT1a and pT1b, and higher proportion of invasive cancers of special types, at DBT than DM); and tumour grade (higher proportion of grade I at DBT than DM). There were no differences in distributions of nodal and hormone receptor (ER/PR) status., Conclusions: Our findings provide early insights into the extent that transitioning to DBT screening may modify the characteristics of screen-detected breast cancer to inform discussion regarding pros and cons of DBT screening; although our data provide some reassurance that DBT does not increase the proportion of screen-detected DCIS, they highlight mixed findings on comparative tumour characteristics, suggesting a potential for enhancing screening benefit and possibly also over-diagnosis from DBT screening.

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.

Background & Methods: The prospective 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most population breast cancer (BC) screening programs use double-reading of 2D-mammography. We recently reported the screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography-2 (STORM-2) trial, showing that double-read tomosynthesis (pseudo-3D-mammography) detected more BC than double-read 2D-mammography. In this study, we compare screen-detection measures for single-reading of 3D-mammography with those for double-reading of 2D-mammography, to inform screening practice., Methods: This is a secondary analysis based on STORM-2 which prospectively compared 3D-mammography and 2D-mammography in sequential screen-readings. Asymptomatic women ≥49 years who attended population-based screening (Trento, 2013-2015) were recruited. Participants recalled at any screen-read from parallel double-reading arms underwent further testing and/or biopsy. Single-reading of 3D-mammography, integrated with acquired or synthetized 2D-mammograms, was compared to double-reading of 2D-mammograhy alone for screen-detection measures: number of detected BCs, cancer detection rate (CDR), number and percentage of false-positive recall (FPR). Paired binary data were compared using McNemar's test., Results: Screening detected 90, including 74 invasive, BCs in 85 of 9672 participants. CDRs for single-reading using integrated 2D/3D-mammography (8.2 per 1000 screens; 95% CI 6.5-10.2) or 2D synthetic/3D-mammography (8.4 per 1000 screens; 95% CI: 6.7-10.4) were significantly higher than CDR for double-reading of 2D-mammography (6.3 per 1000 screens; 95% CI: 4.8-8.1), P<0.001 both comparisons. FPR% for single-read 2D/3D-mammography (2.60%; 95% CI: 2.29-2.94), or single-read 2D synthetic/3D-mammography (2.76%; 95% CI: 2.45-3.11), were significantly lower than FPR% for double-read 2D-mammography (3.42%; 95% CI: 3.07-3.80), P<0.001 and P=0.002 respectively., Conclusions: Single-reading of 3D-mammography (integrated 2D/3D or 2Dsynthetic/3D) detected more BC, and had lower FPR, compared to current practice of double-reading 2D-mammography alone - these findings have implications for population BC screening programs., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

We examined interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection (TP, FP) for radiologists screen-reading with digital breast tomosynthesis as adjunct to full-field digital mammography (2D/3D) relative to 2D alone in population-based screening studies. A systematic literature search was performed to identify screening studies that provided radiologist-specific data for TP and FP detection. Radiologist interpretive efficiency (trade-off between TPs and FPs) was calculated using the FP:TP ratio which expresses the number of FP recalls for each screen-detected breast cancer. We modeled a pooled FP:TP ratio to assess variability in radiologists' interpretive efficiency at study-level using random effects logistic regression. FP:TP ratio improved (ratio decreased) for 2D/3D screen-reading (relative to 2D) for a majority of radiologists (18 of 22) across all studies. Variability in radiologists' FP:TP ratio was consistently lower in all studies for 2D/3D screen-reading, as suggested by lower variance in ratios. Study-level pooled FP:TP ratio for 2D- and 2D/3D-mammography respectively, were 5.96 (95%CI: 4.08 to 8.72) and 3.17 (95%CI: 2.25 to 4.47) for the STORM trial; 10.25 (95%CI: 6.42 to 16.35) and 7.07 (95%CI: 4.99 to 10.02) for the Oslo trial; and 20.84 (95%CI: 13.95 to 31.12) and 8.37 (95%CI: 5.87 to 11.93) for the Houston study. This transfers into study-level improved interpretative efficiencies of 48%, 30% and 55%, respectively, for 2D/3D screen-reading (relative to 2D). In summary, study-level FP:TP trade-off improved using 2D/3D-mammography for all studies, which was also seen for most individual radiologists. There was variability in the FP:TP trade-off between readers and studies for 2D-as well as for 2D/3D-interpretations but variability in radiologists' interpretive efficiency was relatively lower using 2D/3D-mammography., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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 © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis with 3D images might overcome some of the limitations of conventional 2D mammography for detection of breast cancer. We investigated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D mammography in population breast-cancer screening., Methods: Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammography (STORM) was a prospective comparative study. We recruited asymptomatic women aged 48 years or older who attended population-based breast-cancer screening through the Trento and Verona screening services (Italy) from August, 2011, to June, 2012. We did screen-reading in two sequential phases-2D only and integrated 2D and 3D mammography-yielding paired data for each screen. Standard double-reading by breast radiologists determined whether to recall the participant based on positive mammography at either screen read. Outcomes were measured from final assessment or excision histology. Primary outcome measures were the number of detected cancers, the number of detected cancers per 1000 screens, the number and proportion of false positive recalls, and incremental cancer detection attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography. We compared paired binary data with McNemar's test., Findings: 7292 women were screened (median age 58 years [IQR 54-63]). We detected 59 breast cancers (including 52 invasive cancers) in 57 women. Both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening detected 39 cancers. We detected 20 cancers with integrated 2D and 3D only versus none with 2D screening only (p<0.0001). Cancer detection rates were 5.3 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 3.8-7.3) for 2D only, and 8.1 cancers per 1000 screens (6.2-10.4) for integrated 2D and 3D screening. The incremental cancer detection rate attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography was 2.7 cancers per 1000 screens (1.7-4.2). 395 screens (5.5%; 95% CI 5.0-6.0) resulted in false positive recalls: 181 at both screen reads, and 141 with 2D only versus 73 with integrated 2D and 3D screening (p<0.0001). We estimated that conditional recall (positive integrated 2D and 3D mammography as a condition to recall) could have reduced false positive recalls by 17.2% (95% CI 13.6-21.3) without missing any of the cancers detected in the study population., Interpretation: Integrated 2D and 3D mammography improves breast-cancer detection and has the potential to reduce false positive recalls. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare integrated 2D and 3D mammography with 2D mammography for breast cancer screening., Funding: National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Hologic, USA; Technologic, Italy., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explain which measures of accuracy and which statistical methods should be used in studies to assess the value of a new binary test as a replacement test, an add-on test, or a triage test., Study Design and Setting: Selection and explanation of statistical methods, illustrated with examples., Results: Statistical methods for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies are described that take into account the purpose of the new diagnostic test. Methods are described within a framework that defines the major purpose of test comparison: assessing the value of a new test as a replacement test, an add-on test, or a triage test. Methods appropriate for both unpaired and paired study designs for binary test data are given, including regression modeling of diagnostic test accuracy. Implications for efficient study designs are also discussed., Conclusions: Appropriate selection of existing statistical methods is necessary to address research questions about the comparative accuracy of new tests., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Whether tests such as imaging should be read with or without access to prior clinical information is controversial. Naïve comparisons may suggest that the provision of prior information improves test accuracy, whereas in fact the opposite may be true. This is because provision of clinical background may actually bias test readers to over- or underinterpret relevant test findings, and they may suboptimally integrate the previous and current evidence. We propose comparing the combined accuracy of prior information and a test read (i) with or (ii) without knowledge of prior information. Analysis methods include simple decision rules and logistic regression., Study Design and Setting: A study of cancer detection in women presenting with breast symptoms, in whom ultrasound could be read with or without reviewing prior mammography., Results: Naïve analysis gave an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for ultrasound read with mammography on view that was 4.6% higher (P < .01) than without mammography on view. Our approach, comparing the combined accuracy of mammography and ultrasound read i) with and ii) without knowledge of mammographic findings, showed much smaller differences., Conclusion: Our approach is more appropriate than naïve analyses. The particular choice of analytic method depends on the study size and the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of the prior information and the test reading.