Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

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

Abstract

Purpose

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to overcome limitations of conventional mammography. This study investigated the effects of addition of DBT on interval and detected cancers in population-based screening.

Methods

Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) was a prospective, independent double-reading trial inviting women 50–69 years biennially, comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT with FFDM alone. Performance indicators and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared with two previous FFDM rounds.

Results

24,301 consenting women underwent FFDM + DBT screening over a 2-year period. Results were compared with 59,877 FFDM examinations during prior rounds. Addition of DBT resulted in a non-significant increase in sensitivity (76.2%, 378/496, vs. 80.8%, 227/281, p = 0.151) and a significant increase in specificity (96.4%, 57229/59381 vs. 97.5%, 23427/24020, p < .001). Number of recalls per screen-detected cancer decreased from 6.7 (2530/378) to 3.6 (820/227) with DBT (p < .001). Cancer detection per 1000 women screened increased (6.3, 378/59877, vs. 9.3, 227/24301, p < .001). Interval cancer rate per 1000 screens for FFDM + DBT remained similar to previous FFDM rounds (2.1, 51/24301 vs. 2.0, 118/59877, p = 0.734). Interval cancers post-DBT were comparable to prior rounds but significantly different in size, grade, and node status from cancers detected only using DBT. 39.6% (19/48) of interval cancers had positive nodes compared with only 3.9% (2/51) of additional DBT-only-detected cancers.

Conclusions

DBT-supplemented screening resulted in significant increases in screen-detected cancers and specificity. However, no significant change was observed in the rate, size, node status, or grade of interval cancers.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01248546.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Njor S, Nystrom L, Moss S et al (2012) Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):33–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Massat NJ, Dibden A, Parmar D et al (2016) Impact of screening on breast cancer mortality. The UK program 20 years on. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 25:455–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL 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 156:109–116

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lang 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 26:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts. JAMA 315:1784–1786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Elmore JG, Sebuodegard S, Hoff SR, Lee CI (2014) Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography. Radiology 272:52–62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical test for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 277:697–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, Ellis IO, Cornford E (2006) Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer? Am J Roentgenol AJR 187:1377–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA (2000) Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol 55:40–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterizing invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 71:889–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J 21:538–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bustreo S, Osella-Abate S, Cassoni P et al (2016) Optimal Ki67 cut-off for luminal breast cancer prognostic evaluation: a large case series study with a long-term follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157:363–371

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Healey MA, Hirko KA, Beck AH, et al. Assessment of Ki67 for breast cancer subtype classification and prognosis in the Nurses’ Health Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4421-3

  20. Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJT et al (2014) Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144:103–111

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJT et al (2011) Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:725–734

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hayse B, Hooley RJ, Killelea BK et al (2016) Breast cancer biology varies by method of detection and may contribute to overdiagnosis. Surgery 160:454–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang W-S, Hardesty L, Borgstede J et al (2016) Breast cancers found with digital breast tomosynthesis: a comparison of pathology and histologic grade. Breast J 22:651–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim JY, Kang HJ, Shin JK et al (2017) Biologic profile of invasive breast cancers detected only with digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol AJR 209:1–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Morris E, Feig SA, Drexler M, Lehman C (2015) Implications of overdiagnosis: impact on screening mammography practices. Popul Health Manag 18:S3–S11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study has used data from the Cancer Registry of Norway. The interpretation and reporting of the data are the sole responsibility of the authors, and no endorsement by the Cancer Registry of Norway is intended or should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Skaane.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Per Skaane received equipment and funding for additional case interpretations from Hologic, Inc. No conflict of interest for Sofie Sebuødegård, Andriy I. Bandos, David Gur, Bjørn Helge Østerås, Randi Gullien, and Solveig Hofvind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skaane, P., Sebuødegård, S., Bandos, A.I. et al. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169, 489–496 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2

Keywords

Navigation