Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHoussami, Nehmat
dc.contributor.authorLang, Kristina
dc.contributor.authorHofvind, Solveig
dc.contributor.authorZackrisson, Sophia
dc.contributor.authorBernardi, Daniela
dc.contributor.authorHunter, Kylie
dc.contributor.authorAskie, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorSkaane, Per
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-19T02:40:44Z
dc.date.available2021-07-19T02:40:44Z
dc.date.issued2017en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/25717
dc.description.abstractBackground: There is accumulating evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis, referred to as 3D-mammography in this protocol, improves screen-detection measures compared to standard 2D-mammography in the context of population screening for breast cancer. However, the effect of 3D-mammography at follow-up of screened women is not yet known: it is unknown whether additional cancer detection from 3D-mammography leads to incremental screening benefit through a reduction of interval cancers, or whether it is mostly over-detecting indolent cancers. Methods: The aim of this study is to examine whether 3D-mammography population screening improves breast cancer screening effectiveness by reducing interval cancer rates compared to standard digital (2D) mammography screening, using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. In this protocol, we outline the research plan which includes systematic identification of studies eligible to contribute data into the IPD meta-analysis, and sourcing and assembling IPD for participants screened with 3D-mammography (3D alone or integrated 2D/3D or integrated 2Dsynthetic/3D) and comparison participants screened with 2D-mammography (standard of care in breast screening). The primary end-point of this work is the interval breast cancer rate per 10,000 screens for 3D-mammography versus 2D-mammography screening. The IPD meta-analysis will also assess secondary outcomes including: screening sensitivity, cancer detection rates, cancer (prognostic) characteristics, and recall rates, for 3D-mammography versus 2D-mammography screening. The use of IPD meta-analysis will allow stratification of results by age and breast density, and will also facilitate analysis of cancer histological (prognostic) characteristics. Discussion: Finalization of data collection procedures and analysis plans will be complete by the end of 2017. Data collection will occur from late 2017 to late 2018 (screen-detection measures: cancer detection and recall data) and from mid-2018 to mid-2019 (interval cancer data). Results of detection measures should be available by 2019, and interval cancer results in 2020. By addressing the critical evidence gap on whether 3D-mammography screening reduces interval cancer rates (compared to 2D-mammography), we expect that our findings will inform timely translation of 3D-mammography technology into breast screening practice in population-based health programs.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherAME Publ Coen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofTranslational Cancer Researchen_AU
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0en_AU
dc.subjectbreast neoplasmsen_AU
dc.subjectmammographyen_AU
dc.subjectmass screeningen_AU
dc.titleEffectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) in population breast cancer screening: a protocol for a collaborative individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysisen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.subject.asrc1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesisen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.21037/tcr.2017.06.39
dc.relation.otherNational Breast Cancer Foundation LF-16-001
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Sydney School of Public Healthen_AU
usyd.citation.volume6en_AU
usyd.citation.issue4en_AU
usyd.citation.spage869en_AU
usyd.citation.epage877en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.