Invasive Cancer Detection Rate Research Articles

Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography: results of the TOSYMA Trialbreast density related.

The randomized TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) screening trial has shown that digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography (DBT + SM) is superior to digital mammography (DM) in invasive breast cancer detection varying with breast density. On the other hand, the overall average glandular dose (AGD) of DBT is higher than that of DM. Comparing the DBT + SM and DM trial arm, we analyzed here the mean AGD and their determinants per breast density category and related them to the respective invasive cancer detection rates (iCDR). TOSYMA screened 99,689 women aged 50 to 69 years. Compression force, resulting breast thickness, the calculated AGD obtained from each mammography device, and previously published iCDR were used for comparisons across breast density categories in the two trial arms. There were 196,622 exposures of 49,227 women (DBT + SM) and 197,037 exposures of 49,132 women (DM) available for analyses. Mean breast thicknesses declined from breast density category A (fatty) to D (extremely dense) in both trial arms. However, while the mean AGD in the DBT + SM arm declined concomitantly from category A (2.41 mGy) to D (1.89 mGy), it remained almost unchanged in the DM arm (1.46 and 1.51 mGy, respectively). In relative terms, the AGD elevation in the DBT + SM arm (64.4% (A), by 44.5% (B), 27.8% (C), and 26.0% (D)) was lowest in dense breasts where, however, the highest iCDR were observed. Women with dense breasts may specifically benefit from DBT + SM screening as high cancer detection is achieved with only moderate AGD elevations. TOSYMA suggests a favorable constellation for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography (DBT + SM) in dense breasts when weighing average glandular dose elevation against raised invasive breast cancer detection rates. There is potential for density-, i.e., risk-adapted population-wide breast cancer screening with DBT + SM. Breast thickness declines with visually increasing density in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Average glandular doses of DBT decrease with increasing density; digital mammography shows lower andmore constant values. With the smallest average glandular dose differencein dense breasts, DBT plus SM had thehighest difference in invasive breast cancer detection rates.

Low-dose CT screening among never-smokers with or without a family history of lung cancer in Taiwan: a prospective cohort study

In Taiwan, lung cancers occur predominantly in never-smokers, of whom nearly 60% have stage IV disease at diagnosis. We aimed to assess the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening among never-smokers, who had other risk factors for lung cancer. The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) was a nationwide, multicentre, prospective cohort study done at 17 tertiary medical centres in Taiwan. Eligible individuals had negative chest radiography, were aged 55-75 years, had never smoked or had smoked fewer than 10 pack-years and stopped smoking for more than 15 years (self-report), and had one of the following risk factors: a family history of lung cancer; passive smoke exposure; a history of pulmonary tuberculosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders; a cooking index of 110 or higher; or cooking without using ventilation. Eligible participants underwent LDCT at baseline, then annually for 2 years, and then every 2 years up to 6 years thereafter, with follow-up assessments at each LDCT scan (ie, total follow-up of 8 years). A positive scan was defined as a solid or part-solid nodule larger than 6 mm in mean diameter or a pure ground-glass nodule larger than 5 mm in mean diameter. Lung cancer was diagnosed through invasive procedures, such as image-guided aspiration or biopsy or surgery. Here, we report the results of 1-year follow-up after LDCT screening at baseline. The primary outcome was lung cancer detection rate. The p value for detection rates was estimated by the χ2 test. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between lung cancer incidence and each risk factor. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of LDCT screening were also assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02611570, and is ongoing. Between Dec 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019, 12 011 participants (8868 females) were enrolled, of whom 6009 had a family history of lung cancer. Among 12 011 LDCT scans done at baseline, 2094 (17·4%) were positive. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 318 (2·6%) of 12 011 participants (257 [2·1%] participants had invasive lung cancer and 61 [0·5%] had adenocarcinomas in situ). 317 of 318 participants had adenocarcinoma and 246 (77·4%) of 318 had stage I disease. The prevalence of invasive lung cancer was higher among participants with a family history of lung cancer (161 [2·7%] of 6009 participants) than in those without (96 [1·6%] of 6002 participants). In participants with a family history of lung cancer, the detection rate of invasive lung cancer increased significantly with age, whereas the detection rate of adenocarcinoma in situ remained stable. In multivariable analysis, female sex, a family history of lung cancer, and age older than 60 years were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and invasive lung cancer; passive smoke exposure, cumulative exposure to cooking, cooking without ventilation, and a previous history of chronic lung diseases were not associated with lung cancer, even after stratification by family history of lung cancer. In participants with a family history of lung cancer, the higher the number of first-degree relatives affected, the higher the risk of lung cancer; participants whose mother or sibling had lung cancer were also at an increased risk. A positive LDCT scan had 92·1% sensitivity, 84·6% specificity, a PPV of 14·0%, and a NPV of 99·7% for lung cancer diagnosis. TALENT had a high invasive lung cancer detection rate at 1 year after baseline LDCT scan. Overdiagnosis could have occurred, especially in participants diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ. In individuals who do not smoke, our findings suggest that a family history of lung cancer among first-degree relatives significantly increases the risk of lung cancer as well as the rate of invasive lung cancer with increasing age. Further research on risk factors for lung cancer in this population is needed, particularly for those without a family history of lung cancer. Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan.

Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Negative Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined. Purpose To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402). Results Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; P < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; P < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; P < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assessment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities. Conclusion The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Breast Density and Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A TOSYMA Trial Subanalysis.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized mammography (SM) reduces the diagnostic pitfalls of tissue superimposition, which is a limitation of digital mammography (DM). Purpose To compare the invasive breast cancer detection rate (iCDR) of DBT plus SM versus DM screening for different breast density categories. Materials and Methods An exploratory subanalysis of the TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) study, a randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel-group trial recruited within the German mammography screening program from July 2018 to December 2020. Women aged 50-69 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBT plus SM or DM screening examination. Breast density categories A-D were visually assessed according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. Exploratory analyses were performed of the iCDR in both study arms and stratified by breast density, and odds ratios and 95% CIs were determined. Results A total of 49 762 women allocated to DBT plus SM and 49 796 allocated to DM (median age, 57 years [IQR, 53-62 years]) were included. In the DM arm, the iCDR was 3.6 per 1000 screening examinations in category A (almost entirely fatty) (16 of 4475 screenings), 4.3 in category B (102 of 23 534 screenings), 6.1 in category C (116 of 19 051 screenings), and 2.3 in category D (extremely dense breasts) (six of 2629 screenings). The iCDR in the DBT plus SM arm was 2.7 per 1000 screening examinations in category A (12 of 4439 screenings), 6.9 in category B (154 of 22 328 screenings), 8.3 in category C (156 of 18 772 screenings), and 8.1 in category D (32 of 3940 screenings). The odds ratio for DM versus DBT plus SM in category D was 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5, 11.1). The invasive cancers detected with DBT plus SM were most often grade 2 tumors; in category C, it was 58% (91 of 156 invasive cancers), and in category D, it was 47% (15 of 32 invasive cancers). Conclusion The TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography trial revealed higher invasive cancer detection rates with digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesized mammography than digital mammography in dense breasts, relatively and absolutely most marked among women with extremely dense breasts. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT03377036 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Surrogate endpoints in breast cancer screening trials – Authors' reply

We appreciate Ismail Jatoi's interest in the TOSYMA study. He challenges the choice of the primary endpoints—the invasive breast cancer detection rates at screening and the following invasive interval cancer rates—as used in this randomised controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised two-dimensional mammography with digital mammography.

Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities.

We evaluated differences in diagnostic mammography performance based on women's race/ethnicity. This cohort study included 267,868 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate screening mammogram findings at 98 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 2005 and 2017. Mammogram assessments were recorded prospectively and breast cancers occurring within one year were ascertained. Performance statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable regression was used to control for personal characteristics and imaging facility. Among non-Hispanic White (70%), non-Hispanic Black (13%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), and Hispanic (7%) women, the invasive cancer detection rate (iCDR, per 1,000 mammograms) and positive predictive value (PPV2) were highest among non-Hispanic White women (iCDR, 35.8; 95% CI, 35.0-36.7; PPV2, 27.8; 95% CI, 27.3-28.3) and lowest among Hispanic women (iCDR, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.2-24.6; PPV2, 19.4; 95% CI, 18.0-20.9). Short interval follow-up recommendations were most common among non-Hispanic Black women [(31.0%; 95% CI, 30.6%-31.5%) vs. other groups, range, 16.6%-23.6%]. False-positive biopsy recommendations were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 mammograms: 169.2; 95% CI, 164.8-173.7) vs. other groups, range, 126.5-136.1]. Some differences were explained by adjusting for receipt of diagnostic ultrasound or MRI for iCDR and imaging facility for short-interval follow-up. Other differences changed little after adjustment. Diagnostic mammography performance varied across racial/ethnic groups. Addressing characteristics related to imaging facility and access, rather than personal characteristics, may help reduce some of these disparities. Diagnostic mammography performance studies should include racially and ethnically diverse populations to provide an accurate view of the population-level effects.

Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial.

Two dimensional (2D) full-field digital mammography is the current standard of breast cancer screening. Digital breast tomosynthesis generates pseudo-three dimensional datasets of the breast from which synthesised 2D (s2D) mammograms can be reconstructed. This innovative approach reduces the likelihood of overlapping breast tissues that can conceal features of malignancy. We aimed to compare digital breast tomosynthesis plus s2D mammography with digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer. TOSYMA was a randomised, open-label, superiority trial done at 17 screening units in two federal states of Germany. Eligible participants were women aged 50-69 years who had been invited to participate in a population-wide, quality-controlled mammography screening programme. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to digital breast tomosynthesis plus s2D mammography or digital mammography alone using block randomisation (block size of 32), stratified by site. The primary endpoints were the detection rate of invasive breast cancer and invasive interval cancer rate at 24 months, analysed in the modified full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants who underwent either type of screening examination. Ten examinations, corresponding to a second study participation, were excluded. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interval cancer rates will be reported in the follow-up study. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, which included all participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03377036, and is closed to accrual. Between July 5, 2018, and Dec 30, 2020, 99 689 women were randomly assigned to digital breast tomosynthesis plus s2D mammography (n=49 804) or digital mammography (n=49 830). Invasive breast cancers were detected in 354 of 49 715 women with evaluable primary endpoint data in the digital breast tomosynthesis plus s2D group (detection rate 7·1 cases per 1000 women screened) and in 240 of 49 762 women in the digital mammography group (4·8 cases per 1000 women screened; odds ratio 1·48 [95% CI 1·25-1·75]; p<0·0001). Adverse events and device deficiencies were rare (six adverse events in each group; 23 device deficiencies in the digital breast tomosynthesis plus s2D group vs five device deficiencies in the digital mammography group) and no serious adverse events were reported. The results from this study indicate that the detection rate for invasive breast cancer was significantly higher with digital breast tomosynthesis plus s2D mammography than digital mammography alone. Evaluation of interval cancer rates in the follow-up study will further help to investigate incremental long-term benefits of digital breast tomosynthesis screening. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation).

The Impact of Radiologist Screening Mammogram Reading Volume on Performance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Although some studies have shown increasing radiologists' mammography volumes improves performance, there is a lack of evidence specific to digital mammography and breast screening program performance targets. This study evaluates the relationship between digital screening volume and meeting performance targets. This retrospective cohort study included 493 radiologists in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who interpreted 1,762,173 screening mammograms in participants ages 50-90 between 2014 and 2016. Associations between annual screening volume and meeting performance targets for abnormal call rate, positive predictive value (PPV), invasive cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, and specificity were modeled using mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression. Most radiologists read 500-999 (36.7%) or 1,000-1,999 (31.0%) screens annually, and 18.5% read ≥2,000. Radiologists who read ≥2,000 annually were more likely to meet abnormal call rate (OR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.17-12.61), PPV (OR = 5.36; 95% CI: 2.53-11.34), invasive CDR (OR = 4.14; 95% CI: 1.50-11.46), and specificity (OR = 4.07; 95% CI: 1.89-8.79) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. Radiologists reading 1,000-1,999 screens annually were more likely to meet PPV (OR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.22-4.40), invasive CDR (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.49-7.59) and specificity (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.04-3.84) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. No significant differences were observed for sensitivity. Annual reading volume requirements of 1,000 in Canada are supported as screening volume above 1,000 was strongly associated with achieving performance targets for nearly all measures. Increasing the minimum volume to 2,000 may further reduce the potential limitations of screening due to false positives, leading to improvements in overall breast screening program quality.

Analysis of the reported data of National Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Rural Areas in China from 2009 to 2018

Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Rural Areas (NCCSPRA) in China. Methods: Data were collected in the form of quarterly statistical tables reported by NCCSPRA counties in 30 provinces (Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan province of China were not included into the NCCSPRA, and Tibet Autonomous Region carried out the program but did not reported the data) from 2009 to 2018. The women aged 35-64 years with sexual behavior and the identity (Hukou) of rural area in these project counties were included into the NCCSPRA, and women receiving hysterectomy for non-cervical cancer or non-cervical lesions were excluded. The following indicators were analyzed: the positive rates of different screening methods, the abnormality rates of colposcopy and histopathology, the detection rate of precancerous lesions, the detection rate of cervical cancer and the rate of early diagnosis. Results: A total of 85 041 490 women aged 35-64 in rural areas received free cervical cancer screening and diagnosis if necessary. On the whole, the abnormality rate of cytology, HPV testing, VIA/VILI, colposcopy and histopathology was 3.71%(2 567 610), 9.91%(331 158), 10.10%(1 167 930), 28.85%(1 420 847), and 21.20%(303 068) respectively. The detection rate of cervical precancerous lesions was 153.88/100 000, and increased from 106.85/100 000 in 2012 to 223.89/100 000 in 2018 (P<0.001). Regionally, the east (207.37/100 000) reached higher rate than the middle (177.65/100 000), and the middle higher than the west (108.65/100 000) (P<0.001). The detection rate of invasive cervical cancer was 21.58/100 000, and increased from 18.02/100 000 in 2012 to 26.54/100 000 in 2018 (P<0.001). Regionally, the middle of China (25.46/100 000) reached the higher rate than the east (19.62/100 000) and the west (19.30/100 000) (P<0.001). The rate of early detection was 91.24%(136 140), which increased from 89.60% (11 883)in 2012 to 92.80%(26 962) in 2018 (P<0.001). Regionally, the east of China (94.02%, 37 600) reached the higher rate than the middle(91.06%, 56 488), and the middle higher than the west (89.12%, 42 052) (P<0.001). Conclusions: There are obvious difference in terms of the detection rate of cervical precancerous lesions and the rate of early diagnosis reflecting cervical cancer screening capacity among the eastern, middle and western regions,which showed service inequity among different areas indirectly. The middle and western regions, especially the western regions, are still the focus of future works.

Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The "Sweet Spot" Revisited: Optimal Recall Rates for Cancer Detection With 2D and 3D Digital Screening Mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry.

OBJECTIVE. One central question pertaining to mammography quality relates to discerning the optimal recall rate to maximize cancer detection while minimizing unnecessary downstream diagnostic imaging and breast biopsies. We examined the trade-offs for higher recall rates in terms of biopsy recommendations and cancer detection in a single large health care organization. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We included 2D analog, 2D digital, and 3D digital (tomosynthesis) screening mammography examinations among women 40-79 years old performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, with cancer follow-up through 2018. There were 36, 67, and 38 radiologists who read at least 1000 2D analog examinations, 2D digital examinations, and 3D tomosynthesis examinations, respectively, who were included in these analyses. Using logistic regression with marginal standardization, we estimated radiologist-specific mean recall (abnormal interpretations/1000 mammograms), biopsy recommendation, cancer detection (screening-detected in situ and invasive cancers/1000 mammograms), and minimally invasive cancer detection rates while adjusting for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS. Among 1,060,655 screening mammograms, the mean recall rate was 10.7%, the cancer detection rate was 4.0/1000 mammograms, and the biopsy recommendation rate was 1.60%. Recall rates between 7% and 9% appeared to maximize cancer detection while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSION. The results of this investigation are in contrast to those of a recent study suggesting appropriateness of higher recall rates. The "sweet spot" for optimal cancer detection appears to be in the recall rate range of 7-9% for both 2D digital mammography and 3D tomosynthesis. Too many women are being called back for diagnostic imaging, and new benchmarks could be set to reduce this burden.

Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone. MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Forty-two studies reporting on 2 606296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%). Our findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

The impact of adjunctive tomosynthesis on screening mammography outcomes in two widely diverse radiology practices.

To determine the effect of adjunctive digital breast tomosynthesis screening on dissimilar mammography practices. We compared the outcomes of breast cancer screening with digital mammography versus digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis in two independent breast imaging practices from June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016. Institution one was a hospital-based academic practice of breast imaging specialists and institution two was a community-based practice with academic affiliation served by general radiologists. Screening mammography was linked to subsequent diagnostic imaging and pathology. Subject characteristics and performance metrics were compared via t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. A two-sided z test was performed to test modality differences for assessment and pathology subtype. Of the 54638 women, 54% (n=29295) were from institution one and 55% (n=30013) underwent digital mammography alone. Women undergoing mammography with tomosynthesis were older (60.8years vs 56.9years, P<.001) and had slightly less dense breast composition (P=.001). Performance metrics varied substantially between institutions. At both institutions the biopsy rate, positive predictive value of screening (PPV1 ), and invasive cancer detection rate increased significantly with adjunctive tomosynthesis. At institution one, the biopsy rate increased from 1.4% to 1.9%, the PPV1 from 6.0% to 8.2%, and the invasive cancer detection rate from 3.4 to 4.9/1000 women screened. At institution two, the respective increases were from 0.7% to 1.0%, 5.5% to 11.0%, and 2.3% to 4.1/1000. Tomosynthesis recalled asymmetry less and mass more and resulted in fewer BI-RADS 1 and 2 assessments than screening with mammography alone. Adjunctive tomosynthesis appears to have a consistent impact on breast cancer screening performance metrics despite marked variation in breast imaging practice. Combined tomosynthesis screening has a significantly higher PPV1 , leads to a greater number of biopsies, and detects more invasive cancer than screening with digital mammography.

An analysis of screen-detected invasive cancers by grade in the English breast cancer screening programme: are we failing to detect sufficient small grade 3 cancers?

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials have shown a reduction in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening and it is the detection of high-grade invasive cancers that is responsible for much of this effect. We determined the detection rates of invasive cancers by grade, size and type of screen and estimated relative sensitivities with emphasis on grade 3 detection.MethodsThis observational study analysed data from over 11 million screening episodes (67,681 invasive cancers) from the English NHS breast screening programme over seven screening years 2009/2010 to 2015/2016 for women aged 45–70.ResultsAt prevalent (first) screens (which are unaffected by screening interval), the detection rate of small (< 15 mm) invasive cancers was 0.95 per 1000 for grade 1, but for grade 3 only 0.30 per 1000. The ratio of small (< 15 mm) to large (≥ 15 mm) cancers was 1.8:1 for grade 1 but reversed to 0.5:1 for grade 3. We estimated that the relative sensitivity for grade 3 invasive cancers was 52% of that for grade 1 and the relative sensitivity for small (< 15 mm) grade 3 only 26% of that for small (< 15 mm) grade 1 invasive cancers.ConclusionsSensitivity for small grade 3 invasive cancers is poor compared with that for grade 1 and 2 invasive cancers and larger grade 3 malignancies. This observation is likely a limitation of the current technology related to the absence of identifiable mammographic features for small high-grade cancers. Future work should focus on technologies and strategies to improve detection of these clinically most significant cancers.Key Points• The detection of small high-grade invasive cancers is vital to reduce breast cancer mortality.• We estimate the sensitivity for small grade 3 invasive cancers may be only 26% of that of small grade 1 invasive cancers. This is likely to be associated with the non-specific mammographic features for these cancers.• New technologies and appropriate strategies using current technology are required to maximise the detection of small grade 3 invasive cancers.

Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes: selecting candidate performance indicators

BackgroundIn the scope of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) subgroup was tasked to identify breast cancer screening programme (BCSP) performance indicators, including their acceptable and desirable levels, which are associated with breast cancer (BC) mortality. This paper documents the methodology used for the indicator selection.MethodsThe indicators were identified through a multi-stage process. First, a scoping review was conducted to identify existing performance indicators. Second, building on existing frameworks for making well-informed health care choices, a specific conceptual framework was developed to guide the indicator selection. Third, two group exercises including a rating and ranking survey were conducted for indicator selection using pre-determined criteria, such as: relevance, measurability, accurateness, ethics and understandability. The selected indicators were mapped onto a BC screening pathway developed by the M&E subgroup to illustrate the steps of BC screening common to all EU countries.ResultsA total of 96 indicators were identified from an initial list of 1325 indicators. After removing redundant and irrelevant indicators and adding those missing, 39 candidate indicators underwent the rating and ranking exercise. Based on the results, the M&E subgroup selected 13 indicators: screening coverage, participation rate, recall rate, breast cancer detection rate, invasive breast cancer detection rate, cancers > 20 mm, cancers ≤10 mm, lymph node status, interval cancer rate, episode sensitivity, time interval between screening and first treatment, benign open surgical biopsy rate, and mastectomy rate.ConclusionThis systematic approach led to the identification of 13 BCSP candidate performance indicators to be further evaluated for their association with BC mortality.

MP73-11 ROLE OF BLUE LIGHT CYSTOSCOPY IN DETECTING INVASIVE BLADDER TUMOR: DATA FROM MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL REGISTRY

You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Non-invasive IV (MP73)1 Apr 2020MP73-11 ROLE OF BLUE LIGHT CYSTOSCOPY IN DETECTING INVASIVE BLADDER TUMOR: DATA FROM MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL REGISTRY Hamed Ahmadi*, Sanam Ladi Seyedian, Trinity J Bivalacqua, Jeffrey Holzbeierlein, Brian Willard, Jeniffer Taylor, Joseph C Liao, James Tierney, Hooman Djaladat, Anne Schuckman, Kamal Pohar, Badrinath Konety, and Sia Daneshmand Hamed Ahmadi*Hamed Ahmadi* More articles by this author , Sanam Ladi SeyedianSanam Ladi Seyedian More articles by this author , Trinity J BivalacquaTrinity J Bivalacqua More articles by this author , Jeffrey HolzbeierleinJeffrey Holzbeierlein More articles by this author , Brian WillardBrian Willard More articles by this author , Jeniffer TaylorJeniffer Taylor More articles by this author , Joseph C LiaoJoseph C Liao More articles by this author , James TierneyJames Tierney More articles by this author , Hooman DjaladatHooman Djaladat More articles by this author , Anne SchuckmanAnne Schuckman More articles by this author , Kamal PoharKamal Pohar More articles by this author , Badrinath KonetyBadrinath Konety More articles by this author , and Sia DaneshmandSia Daneshmand More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000959.011AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Blue light cystoscopy (BLC) has been shown to not only increase detection rate of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) including carcinoma in situ (CIS), it also decreases recurrence and progression rates. There is still some unanswered questions regarding the role of BL in changing management of patients with NMIBC at high risk for progression to muscle invasive disease. Here we assessed the role of BLC in detecting invasive tumors that were not visible on WLC, in patients undergoing BLC. METHODS: Using Cysview registry database which prospectively collects information on all patients who undergo transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) using BLC in 9 different institutions, Patients who had at least one WL-/BL+ lesion with invasive pathology (≥ T1) as highest stage tumor were identified. All patients with at least one WL-/BL+ lesion and also the ones with invasive tumor were also selected as denominators. Relevant baseline information and outcome data were gathered. Proportion of invasive tumor in WL-/BL+ group was compared to WL+/BL+ and WL+/BL- groups. RESULTS: Of total of 3514 lesions (1257 unique patients) with complete information available, 818 (23.2%) lesions were WL-/BL+ and 494 (14%) lesions were invasive tumors. Of all WL-/BL+ lesions, 55 (7%) lesions [47 unique patients] had at least one WL-/BL+ invasive tumor (Table1, Figure 1a). Of all invasive tumors, 55 (11%) lesions were WL-/BL+ (48 T1 and 7 T2) (Figure 2a). With regard to WL-/BL+ T1 lesions, 28 (58%) had concomitant CIS and 23 (48%) had at least another T1 lesion detected during TURBT. Among those accompanying lesions, 20 (70%) of CIS lesions and 9 (38%) of other T1 lesions were also WL-/BL+. Of patients with complete follow up, 23/33 (70%) patients underwent radical cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of invasive lesions are only detectable by BLC. Our findings suggest an additional benefit of BLC in earlier detection of invasive bladder tumors that could change the treatment approach and ultimately lead to improved survival in this high risk population. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1125-e1125 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Hamed Ahmadi* More articles by this author Sanam Ladi Seyedian More articles by this author Trinity J Bivalacqua More articles by this author Jeffrey Holzbeierlein More articles by this author Brian Willard More articles by this author Jeniffer Taylor More articles by this author Joseph C Liao More articles by this author James Tierney More articles by this author Hooman Djaladat More articles by this author Anne Schuckman More articles by this author Kamal Pohar More articles by this author Badrinath Konety More articles by this author Sia Daneshmand More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening

Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography. To compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts. Cross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019. All women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias. The primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity. Among 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15). Among women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Higher Detection Rates of Biologically Aggressive Breast Cancers inMammography Screening than in the Biennial Interval.

Assessment of age group-dependent detection rates of invasive breast cancers among participants in mammography screening including the interval, classified into immunohistochemical subtypes indicating the intrinsic tumor aggressiveness. The target population comprises women aged 50 - 69 years. All invasive breast cancers diagnosed in one screening (sc) unit during the implementation phase 1/2006 - 12/2010 or identified by the cancer registry during the biennial interval (iv) were categorized based on hormonal-receptor status (HR) and Her2-expression (Her2) into the following subtypes: a) HR+ Her2-, b) HR+ Her2 +, c) HR- Her2 + or d) HR- Her2- (triple-negative); Her2 + and triple-negative types were defined as aggressive. The calculated detection rates (DR, ‰) were based on 53 375 sc-examinations and for the interval on 52 887 sc-negative examinations. The DRs of all subtypes were higher in screening versus the interval: (a) 4.95 ‰ (n = 264) vs. 1.00 ‰ (n = 53); b) 0.92 ‰ (n = 49) vs. 0.25 ‰ (n = 13); c) 0.36 ‰ (n = 19) vs. 0.06 ‰ (n = 3); d) 0.39 ‰ (n = 21) vs. 0.19 ‰ (n = 10). 77.4 ‰ (89/115) of all aggressive breast cancers including the following 2-year interval were diagnosed by screening. The sum of the DR of aggressive cancers was 1.67 ‰ in screening and 0.49 ‰ in the interval; the corresponding DRs for women aged 60 - 69 years [sc: 2.24 ‰ (51/22 814), iv: 0.58 ‰ (13/22 536)] were higherthan among women aged 50 - 59 years [sc: 1.24 ‰ (38/30 561), iv: 0.43 ‰ (13/30 351)]. Screening has the potential for earlier diagnosis of aggressive tumor types as its detection rate is about three-fold higher compared to the interval. Within the target group, participants aged 60 - 69 years are at risk based on absolute numbers. They show a nearly two-fold higher detection rate of Her2-positive or triple-negative tumors compared to the age group 50 - 59 years. · Her2-positive and triple-negative detection rates are higher in screening than in the interval.. · 77 % of aggressive subtypes are diagnosed by screening, 23 % during the 2-year interval.. · The detection rate is highest among women aged 60 - 69years in screening.. · Prange A, Bokhof B, Polzer P et al. Higher Detection Rates of Biologically Aggressive Breast Cancers in Mammography Screening than in the Biennial Interval. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 130 - 136.

Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised images versus standard full-field digital mammography in population-based screening (TOSYMA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial

IntroductionDevelopment of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) provides a technology that generates three-dimensional data sets, thus reducing the pitfalls of overlapping breast tissue. Observational studies suggest that the combination of two-dimensional...

Evolution of the National Breast Screening Programme in Ireland: Two-year interval analysis (2004-2013) of BreastCheck.

Monitoring breast screening programmes is essential to ensure quality. BreastCheck, the national breast screening programme in the Republic of Ireland, commenced screening in 2000, with full national expansion in 2007, and digital mammography introduced in 2008. We aimed to review the performance of BreastCheck from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2013. Using the customised clinical and administrative database, performance indicator data were collected from BreastCheck and compared with programme and European guideline standards. Over the decade, 972,236 screening examinations were performed. Uptake initially rose following national expansion, but fell in the subsequent years to <70% in 2012-2013. Following the introduction of digital mammography, initial recall rates increased from 5.2% in 2004-2005 to 8.1% in 2012-2013. Subsequent recall rates remained within the target of <3%. On average, invasive cancer detection rates were 6.6/1000 for initial and 4.5/1000 for subsequent women. Small cancer detection rates were for <15 mm 43.4% (initial women) and 51.7% (subsequent) and for ≤10mm 24.0% (initial) and 29.5% (subsequent). Ductal carcinoma in situ detection as a percentage of all cancers averaged 21.2% for initial and 20.0% for subsequent women. The majority were intermediate or high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. The positive predictive value was 11.9% for initial and 21.8% for subsequent women. Standardized detection ratios remained above the programme target. Revised indicators to reflect the digital mammography era are anticipated in revised European Guidelines on breast cancer screening.