Breast Neoplasms
Conditions
Keywords
Diagnostic Imaging, Mammography, Randomized Controlled Trial, Tomosynthesis, Early performance measures, Recall, Radiation dose, Cancer detection, Sensitivity, Specificity, Cost, Economy
Brief summary
Compare synthetic mammography+digital breast tomosynthesis (SM+DBT) with digital mammography (DM) as a screening tool for women aged 50-69 years, invited to participate in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program at the screening unit in Bergen, Norway, with regard to early performance measures, including prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics, radiation doses and cost-effectiveness.
Detailed description
DBT is a new screening tool, argued to be better than standard DM. This statement is based on a lower recall rate, and a higher rate of early-stage screen-detected cancer. No studies have so far reported results from women screened with DBT from GE Healthcare, as far as the investigators know. DBT from GE offer synthetic two-dimensional DM generated from the DBT data (SM), and studies have shown similar detection rates for this technique as of adjacent DM. By comparing results of early performance measures and economic aspects in two comparable populations of women in the same age group, residing in the same county, the investigators can measure the effect of SM+DBT versus standard DM with equipment from GE Healthcare. The populations will be examined by the same radiographers, screen-read by the same radiologists, histologically breast cancer proven by the same pathologists, and treated by the same surgeons and oncologists. A prospective cohort study targeting 45,000 women invited to breast cancer screening in Bergen, Hordaland in the study period, 2016-2018, will be performed. A screening participation of approximately 75% is expected. All attending women will be asked if they are willing to participate in the study after receiving written and oral information about the study. Women willing to participate in the study will sign an informed consent. Of the attending women it is expected that about 90-95% will consent to participate in the study. The women will be randomized into two groups, a study group and a control group. The randomization will take place at the screening unit in Bergen. The outcome of the randomization is based on the 11-digit personal identification number assigned to every citizen in Norway. In the study group, the women will be screened with SM+DBT. In the control group, the women will be screened with DM. Women not willing to participate in the study will be screened with DM, and not included in our study. The investigators aim to address the following topics and research questions: * Study 1: Early performance measures in a population based screening program using SM+DBT versus DM - interim analyses. * Study 2: Use of SM+DBT versus DM in a population based screening program - a randomized controlled trial. * Study 3: Prognostic and predictive histopathologic characteristics of breast tumors detected in a population based program using SM+DBT versus DM. * Study 4: SM+DBT and DM in a populations based screening program - which technology has the highest sensitivity for women with mammographic dense breast? * Study 5 and 6: Costs of SM+DBT and DM in a populations based screening program - is SM+DBT cost-effective?
Interventions
Two-view tomosynthesis performed with GE Senoclaire 3D Breast Tomosynthesis.
Two-view digital mammography performed with GE Senoclaire 3D Breast Tomosynthesis.
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Informed consent
Exclusion criteria
* Breast implants
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | 36 months from start up of the trial | Comparison of rates of screen-detected breast cancer in tomosynthesis versus digital mammography as performed in a population based screening program. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Recalled for Further Assesment Due to Mammographic Findings | 36 months from start up of the trial | Comparison of rate of recall for further assesment due to mammographic findings in tomosynthesis versus digital mammography as performed in a population based screening program. |
| Incremental Costs of Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography | 36 months from start up of the trial | The incremental cost per woman screened with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program. |
| Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | 36 months from start up of the trial | Distribution of characteristics among the women diagnosed with breast cancer screened with tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population based screening program. |
| Number of Participants With Interval Breast Cancer | 60 months from start up of the trial | Rate of interval breast cancer among those screened with tomosynthesis versus digital mammography as performed in a population based screening program. |
| Number and Percentage of Participants Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Among Participants Recalled for Further Assesment | 36 months from start up of the trial | Positive predictive value of recalls (number of screen-detected breast cancer among participants recalled for further assesment) for tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population based screening program. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Radiation Doses When Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography | 24 months from start up of the trial | Radiation doses will be measured for screening with tomosynthesis and digital mammography by an automated software, in milligray (mGy). |
| Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | 36 months from start up of the trial | Distribution of characteristics among the women diagnosed with breast cancer screened with tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population based screening program. |
| Time Spent on Screen-Reading and Consensus Meetings | 24 months from start up of the trial | The time spent on screen-reading and consensus will be compared for tomosynthesis versus digital mammography |
Countries
Norway
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Women were invited to participate when attending screening at the screening unit Danmarksplass in Bergen, Norway. The recruitment period lasted from January 14th 2016 to December 15th 2017.
Pre-assignment details
Women that attended screening but had breast implant were not invited to participate, and thus not randomized to either of the study groups.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Digital Breast Tomosynthesis + Synthetic Mammography (DBT)
The DBT was independently read by two radiologists. A consensus meeting decided whether to recall the woman or not.
Women selected for further assessment (positive screening exam) was recalled.
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis + Synthetic Mammography: Two-view tomosynthesis performed with GE SenoClaire 3D Breast Tomosynthesis. | 14,380 |
| Digital Mammography The digital mammograms was independently read by two radiologists. A consensus meeting decided whether to recall the woman or not.
Women selected for further assessment (positive screening exam) was recalled.
Digital mammography: Two-view digital mammography performed with GE SenoClaire 3D Breast Tomosynthesis. | 14,369 |
| Total | 28,749 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Digital Mammography | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized 55-59 years | 3628 Participants | 3668 Participants | 7296 Participants |
| Age, Customized <55 years | 3746 Participants | 3813 Participants | 7559 Participants |
| Age, Customized 60-64 years | 3625 Participants | 3492 Participants | 7117 Participants |
| Age, Customized >64 years | 3381 Participants | 3396 Participants | 6777 Participants |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | — | — | 0 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Norway | 14380 participants | 14369 participants | 28749 participants |
| Screening history Prevalent (first screening) | 2013 Participants | 2053 Participants | 4066 Participants |
| Screening history Subsequent | 12367 Participants | 12316 Participants | 24683 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 14380 Participants | 14369 Participants | 28749 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 2 / 14,734 | 2 / 14,719 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 14,734 | 0 / 14,719 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 14,734 | 0 / 14,719 |
Outcome results
Number of Participants With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer
Comparison of rates of screen-detected breast cancer in tomosynthesis versus digital mammography as performed in a population based screening program.
Time frame: 36 months from start up of the trial
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Number of Participants With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | 95 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Number of Participants With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | 87 Participants |
Incremental Costs of Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography
The incremental cost per woman screened with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program.
Time frame: 36 months from start up of the trial
Population: For each participant, the incremental cost of tomosynthesis vs. digital mammography were estimated, not the total cost of tomosynthesis vs. digital mammography. The investigators assumed that costs not pertaining to examination and reading times, mammograph price, IT storage and connectivity were equal for the two. This Outcome Measure was pre-specified to present the incremental costs per screened woman. By nature, incremental costs are calculated between groups.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Incremental Costs of Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography | Incremental costs of DBT vs. DM in Euro | 8.5 € |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Incremental Costs of Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography | Incremental cost of DBT vs. DM after adding costs of recall, in Euro | 6.2 € |
Number and Percentage of Participants Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Among Participants Recalled for Further Assesment
Positive predictive value of recalls (number of screen-detected breast cancer among participants recalled for further assesment) for tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population based screening program.
Time frame: 36 months from start up of the trial
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Number and Percentage of Participants Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Among Participants Recalled for Further Assesment | 95 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Number and Percentage of Participants Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Among Participants Recalled for Further Assesment | 87 Participants |
Number of Participants Recalled for Further Assesment Due to Mammographic Findings
Comparison of rate of recall for further assesment due to mammographic findings in tomosynthesis versus digital mammography as performed in a population based screening program.
Time frame: 36 months from start up of the trial
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Number of Participants Recalled for Further Assesment Due to Mammographic Findings | 444 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Number of Participants Recalled for Further Assesment Due to Mammographic Findings | 571 Participants |
Number of Participants With Interval Breast Cancer
Rate of interval breast cancer among those screened with tomosynthesis versus digital mammography as performed in a population based screening program.
Time frame: 60 months from start up of the trial
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Number of Participants With Interval Breast Cancer | 20 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Number of Participants With Interval Breast Cancer | 29 Participants |
Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer
Distribution of characteristics among the women diagnosed with breast cancer screened with tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population based screening program.
Time frame: 36 months from start up of the trial
Population: When collecting information on histopathological tumor characteristics, not all participants had information available on all variables.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Carcinoma (no special type) | 62 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Tumor diameter : >=10-<20 mm | 43 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Tumor diameter : >=20 mm | 17 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Estrogen receptor positive | 71 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Lobular carcinoma | 6 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Tubular carcinoma | 2 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Other carcinoma | 10 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Tumor diameter : <10 mm | 10 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Lymph node positive | 14 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological grade : grade 1 | 22 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological grade : grade 2 | 38 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological grade : grade 3 | 16 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Progesterone receptor positive | 61 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | HER2 positive | 8 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Ki67 >=30% | 21 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Estrogen receptor positive | 69 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Tumor diameter : <10 mm | 18 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Lymph node positive | 18 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Tumor diameter : >=10-<20 mm | 29 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | HER2 positive | 8 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Tumor diameter : >=20 mm | 13 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological grade : grade 1 | 24 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Carcinoma (no special type) | 51 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Progesterone receptor positive | 62 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Lobular carcinoma | 13 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological grade : grade 2 | 35 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Tubular carcinoma | 4 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Ki67 >=30% | 13 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological type : Other carcinoma | 3 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Prognostic and Predictive Tumor Characteristics for Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Histological grade : grade 3 | 10 Participants |
Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer
Distribution of characteristics among the women diagnosed with breast cancer screened with tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population based screening program.
Time frame: 36 months from start up of the trial
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Associated features | 1 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Architectural distortion | 10 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Asymmetry | 7 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Obscured mass | 1 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Spiculated mass | 35 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Indistinct mass | 16 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Calcifications | 13 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Mass with calcifications | 7 Participants |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Circumscribed mass | 5 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Calcifications | 20 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Indistinct mass | 16 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Architectural distortion | 7 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Circumscribed mass | 2 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Asymmetry | 12 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Obscured mass | 3 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Associated features | 0 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Mass with calcifications | 11 Participants |
| Digital Mammography | Mammographic Features of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer | Spiculated mass | 16 Participants |
Radiation Doses When Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography
Radiation doses will be measured for screening with tomosynthesis and digital mammography by an automated software, in milligray (mGy).
Time frame: 24 months from start up of the trial
Population: Interim analysis performed on study population from the first year of the trial (2016). Not all women had available information on radiation dose.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Radiation Doses When Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography | 2.96 mGy | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
| Digital Mammography | Radiation Doses When Screening With Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography | 2.95 mGy | Standard Deviation 0.38 |
Time Spent on Screen-Reading and Consensus Meetings
The time spent on screen-reading and consensus will be compared for tomosynthesis versus digital mammography
Time frame: 24 months from start up of the trial
Population: Interim analysis performed on study population from the first year of the trial (2016). All cases were screen-read by two radiologist, however not all were discussed at consensus.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Time Spent on Screen-Reading and Consensus Meetings | Initial screen reading | 70.5 seconds | Standard Deviation 54.4 |
| Digital Breast Tomosynthesis | Time Spent on Screen-Reading and Consensus Meetings | Consensus reading | 192.1 seconds | Standard Deviation 118.1 |
| Digital Mammography | Time Spent on Screen-Reading and Consensus Meetings | Initial screen reading | 41.3 seconds | Standard Deviation 49.6 |
| Digital Mammography | Time Spent on Screen-Reading and Consensus Meetings | Consensus reading | 131.9 seconds | Standard Deviation 79.2 |