Tumor Characteristics and Molecular Subtypes in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: The Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

被引:31
|
作者
Johnson, Kristin [1 ]
Zackrisson, Sophia [1 ]
Rosso, Aldana [1 ]
Sartor, Hanna [1 ]
Saal, Lao H. [2 ]
Andersson, Ingvar [1 ]
Lang, Kristina [1 ]
机构
[1] Lund Univ, Skane Univ Hosp, Dept Translat Med, Diagnost Radiol, Inga Marie Nilssons Gata 49, S-20502 Malmo, Sweden
[2] Lund Univ, Dept Clin Sci Lund, Div Oncol & Pathol, Translat Oncogen Unit, Lund, Sweden
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
MAMMOGRAPHY; GRADE; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2019190132
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Screening accuracy can be improved with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). To further evaluate DBT in screening, it is important to assess the molecular subtypes of the detected cancers. Purpose: To describe tumor characteristics, including molecular subtypes, of cancers detected at DBT compared with those detected at digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods: The Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial is a prospective, population-based screening trial comparing one-view DBT with two-view DM. Tumor characteristics were obtained, and invasive cancers were classified according to St Gallen as follows: luminal A-like, luminal B-like human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-negative/HER2-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative cancers. Tumor characteristics were compared by mode of detection: DBT alone or DM (ie, DBT and DM or DM alone). chi(2) test was used for data analysis. Results: Between January 2010 and February 2015, 14 848 women were enrolled (mean age, 57 years +/- 10; age range, 40-76 years). In total, 139 cancers were detected; 118 cancers were invasive and 21 were ductal carcinomas in situ. Thirty-seven additional invasive cancers (36 cancers with complete subtypes and stage) were detected at DBT alone, and 81 cancers (80 cancers with complete stage) were detected at DM. No differences were seen between DBT and DM in the distribution of tumor size 20 mm or smaller (86% [31 of 36] vs 85% [68 of 80], respectively; P = .88), node-negative status (75% [27 of 36] vs 74% [59 of 80], respectively; P = .89), or luminal A-like subtype (53% [19 of 36] vs 46% [37 of 81], respectively; P = .48). Conclusion: The biologic profile of the additional cancers detected at digital breast tomosynthesis in a large prospective population-based screening trial was similar to those detected at digital mammography, and the majority were early-stage luminal A-like cancers. This indicates that digital breast tomosynthesis screening does not alter the predictive and prognostic profile of screening-detected cancers. (C) RSNA, 2019
引用
收藏
页码:273 / 281
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Interval cancer in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone
    Pulido-Carmona, Cristina
    Romero-Martin, Sara
    Raya-Povedano, Jose Luis
    Cara-Garcia, Maria
    Font-Ugalde, Pilar
    Elias-Cabot, Esperanza
    Pedrosa-Garriguet, Margarita
    Alvarez-Benito, Marina
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (8) : 5427 - 5438
  • [42] Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening
    Lee, Janie M.
    Partridge, Savannah C.
    Liao, Geraldine J.
    Hippe, Daniel S.
    Kim, Adrienne E.
    Lee, Christoph, I
    Rahbar, Habib
    Scheel, John R.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2019, 55 : 119 - 125
  • [43] Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Greenberg, Julianne S.
    Hayes, Mary K.
    Copit, Debra S.
    Carlson, Kara L.
    Cink, Thomas M.
    Barke, Lora D.
    Greer, Linda N.
    Miller, Dave P.
    Conant, Emily F.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2499 - 2507
  • [44] EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DIGITAL TOMOSYNTHESIS AS A SCREENING TEST FOR BREAST CANCER
    Salvanes, F. J.
    Loeches, P.
    Mora, G.
    Arriola Bolado, P.
    Novella, B.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (06) : S270 - S270
  • [45] Breast Cancer Screening Should Tomosynthesis Replace Digital Mammography?
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2488 - 2489
  • [46] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial
    Pattacini, Pierpaolo
    Nitrosi, Andrea
    Rossi, Paolo Giorgi
    Iotti, Valentina
    Ginocchi, Vladimiro
    Ravaioli, Sara
    Vacondio, Rita
    Braglia, Luca
    Cavuto, Silvio
    Campari, Cinzia
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 375 - 385
  • [47] Breast Cancer Screening (BCS) by Mammography Tomosynthesis
    Correia, M.
    Aleixo, F.
    Lagoa, A.
    Ferrinho, D.
    Pereira, R.
    Vale, L.
    Cardoso, C.
    Faria, M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2019, 29
  • [48] Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: Is independent double reading still required?
    Weigel, Stefanie
    Hense, Hans-Werner
    Weyer-Elberich, Veronika
    Gerss, Joachim
    Heindel, Walter
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2024, 196 (08): : 834 - 842
  • [49] Can digital breast tomosynthesis decrease interval cancers in a breast cancer screening program?
    Mullen, Lisa A.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (08) : 5425 - 5426
  • [50] Value Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening in a US Medicaid Population
    Miller, Jeffrey D.
    Bonafede, Machaon M.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Pohlman, Scott K.
    Troeger, Kathleen A.
    Fajardo, Laurie L.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 14 (04) : 467 - 474