• Med. J. Aust. · Oct 2019

    Pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for population-based screening in BreastScreen Victoria.

    • Nehmat Houssami, Darren Lockie, Michelle Clemson, Vicki Pridmore, David Taylor, Georgina Marr, Jill Evans, and Petra Macaskill.
    • Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
    • Med. J. Aust. 2019 Oct 1; 211 (8): 357-362.

    ObjectivesTo estimate detection measures for tomosynthesis and standard mammography; to assess the feasibility of using tomosynthesis in population-based screening for breast cancer.Design, SettingProspective 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.ParticipantsWomen at least 40 years of age who presented for routine breast screening between 18 August 2017 and 8 November 2018.Main Outcome MeasuresCancer detection rate (CDR); proportion of screens that led to recall for further assessment.Results5018 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).ConclusionsBreast 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 RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000947303.© 2019 AMPCo Pty Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…