Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Eastern Health Breast and Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC.
Med J Aust. 2019 Oct;211(8):357-362. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50320. Epub 2019 Aug 26.
To estimate detection measures for tomosynthesis and standard mammography; to assess the feasibility of using tomosynthesis in population-based screening for breast cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING: Prospective pilot trial comparing tomosynthesis (with synthesised 2D images) and standard mammography screening of women attending Maroondah BreastScreen, a BreastScreen Victoria service in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.
Women at least 40 years of age who presented for routine breast screening between 18 August 2017 and 8 November 2018.
Cancer detection rate (CDR); proportion of screens that led to recall for further assessment.
5018 tomosynthesis and 5166 standard mammography screens were undertaken in 10 146 women; 508 women (5.0% of screens) opted not to undergo tomosynthesis screening. With tomosynthesis, 49 cancers (40 invasive, 9 in situ) were detected (CDR, 9.8 [95% CI, 7.2-13] per 1000 screens); with standard mammography, 34 cancers (30 invasive, 4 in situ) were detected (CDR, 6.6 [95% CI, 4.6-9.2] per 1000 screens). The estimated difference in CDR was 3.2 more detections (95% CI, -0.32 to 6.8) per 1000 screens with tomosynthesis; the difference was greater for repeat screens and for women aged 60 years or more. The recall rate was greater for tomosynthesis (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.6-4.8%) than standard mammography (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-3.5%; estimated difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, 0.46-1.9%). The median screen reading time for tomosynthesis was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 46-105 seconds); for standard mammography, 16 seconds (IQR, 10-29 seconds).
Breast cancer detection, recall for assessment, and screen reading time were each higher for tomosynthesis than for standard mammography. Our preliminary findings could form the basis of a large scale comparative evaluation of tomosynthesis and standard mammography for breast screening in Australia.
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000947303.
评估断层合成乳腺摄影术和标准乳腺 X 线摄影术的检测指标;评估在基于人群的乳腺癌筛查中使用断层合成乳腺摄影术的可行性。
设计、地点:前瞻性试点试验,比较在墨尔本东郊 Maroondah BreastScreen(维多利亚州乳腺筛查服务)接受断层合成乳腺摄影术(结合合成的 2D 图像)和标准乳腺 X 线摄影术筛查的女性。
2017 年 8 月 18 日至 2018 年 11 月 8 日期间,至少 40 岁且定期进行乳房筛查的女性。
癌症检出率(CDR);需要进一步评估的筛查比例。
在 10146 名女性中进行了 5018 次断层合成乳腺摄影术和 5166 次标准乳腺 X 线摄影术筛查;508 名女性(5.0%的筛查者)选择不进行断层合成乳腺摄影术筛查。使用断层合成乳腺摄影术,检出 49 例癌症(40 例浸润性,9 例原位癌)(CDR,每 1000 例筛查中 9.8[95%CI,7.2-13]例);使用标准乳腺 X 线摄影术,检出 34 例癌症(30 例浸润性,4 例原位癌)(CDR,每 1000 例筛查中 6.6[95%CI,4.6-9.2]例)。估计断层合成乳腺摄影术的 CDR 差异为每 1000 例筛查多检出 3.2 例(95%CI,-0.32 至 6.8);在重复筛查和 60 岁及以上的女性中,差异更大。断层合成乳腺摄影术的召回率(4.2%;95%CI,3.6-4.8%)高于标准乳腺 X 线摄影术(3.0%;95%CI,2.6-3.5%;估计差异,1.2%;95%CI,0.46-1.9%)。断层合成乳腺摄影术的中位筛查阅读时间为 67 秒(四分位距[IQR],46-105 秒);标准乳腺 X 线摄影术为 16 秒(IQR,10-29 秒)。
与标准乳腺 X 线摄影术相比,乳腺癌检出率、评估召回率和筛查阅读时间在断层合成乳腺摄影术中均更高。我们的初步发现可以为在澳大利亚进行基于人群的乳腺癌筛查中,对断层合成乳腺摄影术和标准乳腺 X 线摄影术进行大规模比较评估提供依据。
澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心,ACTRN12617000947303。