Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHofvind, Solveig
dc.contributor.authorMoshina, Nataliia
dc.contributor.authorHolen, Åsne S.
dc.contributor.authorDanielsen, Anders S
dc.contributor.authorLee, Christoph I
dc.contributor.authorHoussami, Nehmat
dc.contributor.authorAase, Hildegunn S
dc.contributor.authorAkslen, Lars A
dc.contributor.authorHaldorsen, Ingfrid S
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-27T00:01:56Z
dc.date.available2023-03-27T00:01:56Z
dc.date.issued2021en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/30285
dc.description.abstractPrevalent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has shown higher cancer detection rates and lower recall rates compared with those of digital mammography (DM). However, data are limited on rates and histopathologic tumor characteristics of interval and subsequent round screen-detected cancers for DBT. Purpose To follow women randomized to screening with DBT or DM and to investigate rates and tumor characteristics of interval and subsequent round screen-detected cancers. Materials and Methods To-Be is a randomized controlled trial comparing the outcome of DBT and DM in organized breast cancer screening. The trial included 28 749 women, with 22 306 women returning for subsequent DBT screening 2 years later (11 201 and 11 105 originally screened with DBT and DM, respectively). Differences in rates, means, and distribution of histopathologic tumor characteristics between women prevalently screened with DBT versus DM were evaluated with Z tests, t tests, and χ2 tests. Relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs was calculated for the cancer rates. Results Interval cancer rates were 1.4 per 1000 screens (20 of 14 380; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1) for DBT versus 2.0 per 1000 screens (29 of 14 369; 95% CI: 1.4, 2.9; P = .20) for DM. The rates of subsequent round screen-detected cancer were 8.1 per 1000 (95% CI: 6.6, 10.0) for women originally screened with DBT and 9.1 per 1000 (95% CI: 7.4, 11.0; P = .43) for women screened with DM. The distribution of tumor characteristics did not differ between groups for either interval or subsequent screen-detected cancer. The RR of interval cancer was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.22; P = .20) for DBT versus DM, whereas RR of subsequent screen-detected cancer for women prevalently screened with DBT versus DM was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.19; P = .43). Conclusion Rates of interval or subsequent round screen-detected cancers and their tumor characteristics did not differ between women originally screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography. The analysis suggests that the benefits of prevalent DBT screening did not come at the expense of worse downstream screening performance measures in a population-based screening program.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherRadiological Society of North Americaen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofRadiologyen_AU
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0en_AU
dc.subjectbreasten_AU
dc.subjectdiagnostic imagingen_AU
dc.subjectbreast neoplasmen_AU
dc.subjectmammographyen_AU
dc.titleInterval and Subsequent Round Breast Cancer in a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screeningen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1148/radiol.2021203936
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Sydney School of Public Healthen_AU
usyd.citation.volume300en_AU
usyd.citation.issue1en_AU
usyd.citation.spage66en_AU
usyd.citation.epage76en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyYesen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

There are no files associated with this item.

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.