S'abonner

One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study - 02/11/18

Doi : 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30521-7 
Sophia Zackrisson, PhD a, , Kristina Lång, PhD a, Aldana Rosso, PhD a, Kristin Johnson, MD a, Magnus Dustler, PhD a, b, Daniel Förnvik, PhD b, Hannie Förnvik, PhD b, Hanna Sartor, PhD a, Pontus Timberg, PhD b, Anders Tingberg, PhD b, Ingvar Andersson, PhD a
a Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Malmö, Sweden 
b Department of Translational Medicine, Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Malmö, Sweden 

* Correspondence to: Dr Sophia Zackrisson, Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Malmö 20502, Sweden Department of Translational Medicine Diagnostic Radiology Lund University Skåne University Hospital Malmö Malmö 20502 Sweden

Summary

Background

Digital breast tomosynthesis is an advancement of the mammographic technique, with the potential to increase detection of lesions during breast cancer screening. The main aim of the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) was to investigate the accuracy of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis in population screening compared with standard two-view digital mammography.

Methods

In this prospective, population-based screening study, of women aged 40–74 years invited to attend national breast cancer screening at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden, a random sample was asked to participate in the trial (every third woman who was invited to attend regular screening was invited to participate). Participants had to be able to speak English or Swedish and were excluded from the study if they were pregnant. Participants underwent screening with two-view digital mammography (ie, craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views) followed by one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with reduced compression in the mediolateral oblique view (with a wide tomosynthesis angle of 50°) at one screening visit. Images were read with masked double reading and scoring by two separate reading groups, one for each method, made up of seven radiologists. Any cancer detected with a malignancy probability score of three or higher by any reader in either group was discussed in a consensus meeting of at least two readers, from which the decision of whether or not to recall the woman for further investigation was made. The primary outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer detection. Secondary outcome measures were screening performance measures of cancer detection, recall, and interval cancers (cancers clinically detected between screenings), and positive predictive value for screen recalls and negative predictive value of each method. Outcomes were analysed in the per-protocol population. Follow-up of the participants for at least 2 years allowed for identification of interval cancers. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091545.

Findings

Between Jan 27, 2010, and Feb 13, 2015, of 21 691 women invited, 14 851 (68%) agreed to participate. Three women withdrew consent during follow-up and were excluded from the analyses. 139 breast cancers were detected in 137 (<1%) of 14 848 women. Sensitivity was higher for digital breast tomosynthesis than for digital mammography (81·1%, 95% CI 74·2–86·9, vs 60·4%, 52·3–68·0) and specificity was slightly lower for digital breast tomosynthesis than was for digital mammography (97·2%, 95% CI 97·0–97·5, vs 98·1%, 97·9–98·3). The proportion of cancers detected was significantly higher with digital breast tomosynthesis than with digital mammography (8·7 cancers per 1000 women screened, 95% CI 7·3–10·3 vs 6·5 cancers per 1000 screened, 5·2–7·9; p<0·0001). The proportion of women recalled after discussion was higher among cancers detected by digital breast tomosynthesis than for those detected by digital mammography after consensus (3·6%, 95% CI 3·3–3·9 vs 2·5%, 2·2–2·8; p<0·0001). The positive predictive value for screen recalls was 24·1% (95% CI 20·5–28·0) for digital breast tomosynthesis and 25·9% (21·6–30·7) for digital mammography, and the negative predictive value was 99·8% (99·7–99·9) and 99·6% (99·4–99·7), respectively. The proportion of women who developed interval cancers after trial screening was 1·48 cancers per 1000 women screened (95% CI 0·93–2·24).

Interpretation

Breast cancer screening by use of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with a reduced compression force has higher sensitivity at a slightly lower specificity for breast cancer detection compared with two-view digital mammography and has the potential to reduce the radiation dose and screen-reading burden required by two-view digital breast tomosynthesis with two-view digital mammography.

Funding

The Swedish Cancer Society, The Swedish Research Council, The Breast Cancer Foundation, The Swedish Medical Society, The Crafoord Foundation, The Gunnar Nilsson Cancer Foundation, The Skåne University Hospital Foundation, Governmental funding for clinical research, The South Swedish Health Care Region, The Malmö Hospital Cancer Foundation and The Cancer Foundation at the Department of Oncology, Skåne University Hospital.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2018  Elsevier Ltd. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 19 - N° 11

P. 1493-1503 - novembre 2018 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial
  • Frank Stephen Hodi, Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, Rene Gonzalez, Jean-Jacques Grob, Piotr Rutkowski, Charles Lance Cowey, Christopher D Lao, Dirk Schadendorf, John Wagstaff, Reinhard Dummer, Pier Francesco Ferrucci, Michael Smylie, Andrew Hill, David Hogg, Ivan Marquez-Rodas, Joel Jiang, Jasmine Rizzo, James Larkin, Jedd D Wolchok
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial
  • Mack Roach, Jennifer Moughan, Colleen A F Lawton, Adam P Dicker, Kenneth L Zeitzer, Elizabeth M Gore, Young Kwok, Michael J Seider, I-Chow Hsu, Alan C Hartford, Eric M Horwitz, Kosj Yamoah, Christopher U Jones, Jeff M Michalski, W Robert Lee, Thomas M Pisansky, Rachel Rabinovitch, Marvin Rotman, Rodger M Pryzant, Harold E Kim, Charles R Thomas, William U Shipley, Howard M Sandler

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.