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 Sørlien; Lång, Kristina; Albertsen, J; Bjørndal, Hilde; Brandal, Siri Helene Bertelsen; Sahlberg, Kristine Kleivi; Skaane, Per; Suhrke, Pål; Hofvind, Solveig

doi:10.1148/radiol.2019191337

Cited by 65 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A few studies evaluating tumor characteristics associated with interval cancer before and after the integration of DBT have largely found similarities between the two groups 3,10,12 . In our study, the vast majority of interval cancers were invasive (DM group: 88.9% invasive, DBT group: 87.5% invasive) rather than in situ in both groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

“…Several studies investigating differences in interval cancer rates in the current literature found no statistically significant differences in rates of interval cancer rates between the two screening modalities 9,10,12 . While these studies occurred at academic institutions, our study evaluated a large community‐based practice and a greater total number of mammograms (236 845) were included in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…A prospective population‐based evaluation of DBT screening of women enrolled in the Trento program found the rate of interval cancers did not significantly differ with DM (1.36 per 1000 screens) when compared with DBT (1.1 per 1000 screens with DBT) 9 . Similarly, a prospective cohort study of the BreastScreen Norway program found similar interval cancer rates of 1.5 per 1000 screens in the DM control group and 2.0 per 1000 screens in the DBT study group with ( P = .12) 10 . Comparison to these studies is limited for breast screening programs in the United States as many screening guidelines in the US recommend annual mammography screening in women beginning at age 40.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Little is known about the tumor features (in situ versus invasive, grade, size, hormone receptor status, and nodal status) of interval cancers associated with 2D screening compared with those associated with DBT. Studies by Hovda et al and Skaane et al found no significant difference in tumor characteristics associated with interval cancers detected with DM and DBT 3,10 . Interestingly, Bahl et al found that interval in situ cancers associated with DBT were larger than those associated with DM 12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…A study of large population tumor registry data from 2003 to 2011 with 2D mammography found that false‐negative screening mammograms are uncommon with a reported rate of 1.0 to 1.5 per 1000 women 8 . In more recent years, most studies evaluating interval cancers before and after the implementation of tomosynthesis have occured in European biennial screening mammography programs for women aged 50‐69 3,9‐11 . A prospective population‐based evaluation of DBT screening of women enrolled in the Trento program found the rate of interval cancers did not significantly differ with DM (1.36 per 1000 screens) when compared with DBT (1.1 per 1000 screens with DBT) 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community‐based practice

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incidence of interval cancers is an important outcome in assessing efficacy of screening. Our primary objective was to compare the incidence of interval cancers detected with two‐dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a large community health system. Our secondary objectives were to compare the patient and tumor characteristics of interval cancers, cancer detection rate, and recall rate. Interval cancers before and after implementation of DBT (2012‐2014 DM group; 2016‐2018 DBT group) were reviewed. Patient factors (age, race, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, family history of breast cancer, known BRCA‐1 or BRCA‐2 genetic mutation, baseline mammogram, and presentation) and tumor characteristics (in situ versus invasive, grade, size, hormone receptor status, and nodal status) were compared with the chi‐squared test or the MidP exact test. Rates (detection and recall) were compared using a z‐score. The rates of interval cancers with DM (0.30 per 1000 [35/117 099]) and DBT (0.33 per 1000 [40/119 746]) were similar (P = .3). Proportion of node‐positive interval cancers was lower in the DBT group (22.9% [8/35] vs 48% [15/31], p.01). Otherwise, the patient and tumor characteristics were similar. The cancer detection rate increased (5.9 per 1000 [709/119 746] vs 3.5 per 1000 [411/117 099], P = .0001), and the recall rate decreased with DBT (8.6% [10 347/119 746] versus 10.7% [12 508/117 099], (P < .0001). Although the cancer detection rate was higher with DBT, the rate of interval breast cancers was similar in both groups. Node‐positive invasive interval cancers were decreased with DBT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community‐based practice

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Screening for Breast Cancer

Henderson,

Webber,

Weyrich

et al. 2024

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceBreast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear.ObjectiveTo review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024.Study SelectionEnglish-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms.ResultsSeven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers.Conclusions and RelevanceEvidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.

show abstract

Screening for Breast Cancer

Nicholson,

Silverstein,

Wong

et al. 2024

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceAmong all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate.ObjectiveThe USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer–specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review.PopulationCisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer.Evidence AssessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement)

show abstract

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

Cited by 65 publications

References 20 publications

Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community‐based practice

Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community‐based practice

Screening for Breast Cancer

Screening for Breast Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About