Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.

Purpose To compare digital mammography (DM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus DM alone for breast cancer screening in the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis trial, a two-arm test-and-treat randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods For this trial, eligible women (45-70 years old) who previously participated in the Reggio Emilia screening program were invited for mammography. Consenting women were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo DBT+DM or DM (both of which involved two projections and double reading). Women were treated according to the decision at DBT+DM. Sensitivity, recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) at baseline were determined; the ratios of these rates for DBT+DM relative to DM alone were determined. Results From March 2014 to March 2016, 9777 women were recruited to the DM+DBT arm of the study, and 9783 women were recruited to the DM arm (mean age, 56.2 vs 56.3 years). Recall was 3.5% in both arms; detection was 4.5 per 1000 (44 of 9783) and 8.6 per 1000 (83 of 9777), respectively (+89%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 31, 72). PPV of the recall was 13.0% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .0002); 72 of 80 cancers found in the DBT+DM arm and with complete DBT imaging were positive at least at one DBT-alone reading. The greater detection rate for DM+DBT was stronger for ductal carcinoma in situ (+180%, 95% CI: 1, 665); it was notable for small and medium invasive cancers, but not for large ones (+94 [95% CI: 6, 254]; +122 [95% CI: 18, 316]; -12 [95% CI: -68, 141]; for invasive cancers < 10 mm, 10-19 mm, and ≥ 20 mm, respectively). Conclusion DBT+DM depicts 90% more cancers in a population previously screened with DM, with similar recall rates.

[1]  S. Heywang-Köbrunner,et al.  Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. , 2016, Breast.

[2]  Stamatia Destounis,et al.  Initial Experience with Combination Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Full Field Digital Mammography or Full Field Digital Mammography Alone in the Screening Environment , 2014, Journal of clinical imaging science.

[3]  F. Falcini,et al.  Incidence of interval breast cancers after 650,000 negative mammographics in 13 Italian health districts , 2008, Journal of medical screening.

[4]  J. Lortet-Tieulent,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. , 2015, JAMA.

[5]  R Holland,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of Oncology.

[6]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art. , 2015, Radiology.

[7]  G. Baird,et al.  Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2015, Radiology.

[8]  G. Ronco,et al.  HPV testing for primary cervical cancer screening , 2007, The Lancet.

[9]  N Houssami,et al.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[11]  T. Wilt,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2011 .

[12]  Eugenio Paci,et al.  Overdiagnosis in Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer in Europe: A Literature Review , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[13]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. , 2006, Radiology.

[14]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[15]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[16]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[17]  S. Duffy,et al.  Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[18]  R. Gelber,et al.  Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015 , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[19]  M. Yaffe,et al.  Recommendations for breast cancer screening. , 2020, The Lancet. Oncology.

[20]  Pragya A. Dang,et al.  Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. , 2014, Radiology.

[21]  Andrew Oustimov,et al.  Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[22]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[23]  Paolo Giorgi Rossi,et al.  Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate , 2016, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[24]  Stephen W Duffy,et al.  Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[25]  Alfonso Frigerio,et al.  False-Positive Results in Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer in Europe: A Literature Review and Survey of Service Screening Programmes , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[26]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration , 2013, European Radiology.

[27]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[28]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1996, JAMA.

[29]  Petra Macaskill,et al.  Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[30]  Yit Yoong Lim,et al.  The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[31]  A. Rosso,et al.  False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial , 2016, European Radiology.