Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 6(14):583–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U et al (2013) 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. Eur Radiol 23(8):2061–2071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S et al (2014) Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading—evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer 50(10):1799–1807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26(1):184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fanto C, Ostillio L et al (2016) 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. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1105–1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311(24):2499–2507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Schnall M et al (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, Herschorn SD, Weaver DL, Onega T et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156(1):109–116

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, Maidment AD, Barufaldi B, Weinstein SP et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281(3):730–736

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Romanucci G, Rella R, Cugola L et al (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 13:170745

    Google Scholar 

  11. StatsDirect Ltd. (2016) StatsDirect statistical software (v3.0.167). Greater Manchester: StatsDirect Ltd.

  12. StataCorp (2017) STATA statistical software: release 15. College Station: StataCorp LLC

  13. Yun SJ, Ryu CW, Rhee SJ, Ryu JK, Oh JY (2017) Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 164(3):557–569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S et al (2014) Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 50(7):1232–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Houssami N, Lång K, Bernardi D, Tagliafico A, Zackrisson S, Skaane P (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: a pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials. Breast 26:119–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Stevanin C, Tagliafico G, Martino L et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25(1):9–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N. Houssami receives research support through a National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF, Australia) Breast Cancer Research Leadership Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV–IRCCS, Padua, Italy

    Francesca Caumo

  2. Breast Unit ULSS9, Ospedale di Marzana, Verona, Italy

    Giovanna Romanucci & Silvia Brunelli

  3. Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Kylie Hunter, Petra Macaskill & Nehmat Houssami

  4. NHMRC Clinical, Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Kylie Hunter

  5. Veneto Tumour Registry, Veneto Region, Padua, Italy

    Manuel Zorzi

Authors
  1. Francesca Caumo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanna Romanucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kylie Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manuel Zorzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silvia Brunelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Petra Macaskill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nehmat Houssami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nehmat Houssami.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caumo, F., Romanucci, G., Hunter, K. et al. Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 170, 391–397 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4756-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4756-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation