Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme

Dibden, Amanda; Offman, Judith; Parmar, Dharmishta; Jenkins, Jacqueline; Slater, Jonathan S.; Binysh, Kathie; McSorley, John; Scorfield, Suzanne; Cumming, Paul; Xh, Liao; Ryan, Michael E.; Harker, Dausen; Stevens, G. Melvin; Rogers, Norma Martinez; Blanks, R G; Sellars, Sarah; Patnick, J; Duffy, Sandra

doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.778

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17,18 The improved detection rates apply particularly to ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancers of size less than 15 mm. Use of two-view mammography in younger women would be likely to result in a similar benefi t. Thus if the UK Age trial were done now, the intervention might have a greater eff ect because of the improved detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and small invasive tumours.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial

Moss

Wale

Smith

et al. 2015

The Lancet Oncology

176

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackground Age-specifi c eff ects of mammographic screening, and the timing of such eff ects, are a matter of debate. The results of the UK Age trial, which compared the eff ect of invitation to annual mammographic screening from age 40 years with commencement of screening at age 50 years on breast cancer mortality, have been reported at 10 years of follow-up and showed no signifi cant diff erence in mortality between the trial groups. Here, we report the results of the UK Age trial after 17 years of follow-up.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial

Moss

Wale

Smith

et al. 2015

The Lancet Oncology

176

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient age, BI-RADS final assessment categories, pathology results from core biopsy and/or surgical excision, tumor size at surgical excision, larger size, estrogen receptor-negative status, and positive lymph node involvement (10,(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). Thus, interval cancers often manifest with a poorer prognosis than do screening-detected cancers.…”

Section: Data Collection and Statistical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine whether the rates and tumor characteristics of screening-detected and interval cancers differ for two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography. Materials and Methods Consecutive screening mammograms from January 2009 to February 2011 (DM group, before DBT integration) and from January 2013 to February 2015 (DBT group, after complete DBT integration) were reviewed. Cancers were considered screening detected if diagnosed within 365 days of a positive screening examination and interval if diagnosed within 365 days of a negative screening examination. Z tests were used to compare cancers on DM versus DBT examinations. Results A total of 948 breast cancers were diagnosed after 78 385 DM and 76 896 DBT examinations. Although the overall rate of screening-detected cancers was similar with DM and DBT (5.0 vs 5.0 per 1000 examinations, P = .98), a higher proportion of screening-detected cancers were invasive rather than in situ with DBT (74.2% [287 of 387] vs 66.0% [260 of 394], P = .01). There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics, including size at pathologic examination, grade, hormone receptor status, and nodal status, between the screening-detected invasive cancers on DM versus DBT (P = .09-.99). The rate of interval cancers was similar with DM and DBT (1.1 vs 1.1 per 1000 examinations, P = .84). Compared with symptomatic interval cancers, magnetic resonance imaging-detected interval cancers were more likely to be minimal cancers. Conclusion The overall rates of screening-detected and interval cancers are similar with DM and DBT, but a higher proportion of screening-detected cancers are invasive rather than in situ with DBT. RSNA, 2017.

show abstract

“…reast cancer screening is an evidence-based intervention able to reduce mortality for breast cancer (1,2). However, mammography sensitivity is not optimal, and this limits screening efficacy (3). Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is an imaging technology that provides a three-dimensional reconstruction of the breast from a limited angle scan involving a series of low-dose mammographic exposures (4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare digital mammography (DM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus DM alone for breast cancer screening in the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis trial, a two-arm test-and-treat randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods For this trial, eligible women (45-70 years old) who previously participated in the Reggio Emilia screening program were invited for mammography. Consenting women were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo DBT+DM or DM (both of which involved two projections and double reading). Women were treated according to the decision at DBT+DM. Sensitivity, recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) at baseline were determined; the ratios of these rates for DBT+DM relative to DM alone were determined. Results From March 2014 to March 2016, 9777 women were recruited to the DM+DBT arm of the study, and 9783 women were recruited to the DM arm (mean age, 56.2 vs 56.3 years). Recall was 3.5% in both arms; detection was 4.5 per 1000 (44 of 9783) and 8.6 per 1000 (83 of 9777), respectively (+89%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 31, 72). PPV of the recall was 13.0% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .0002); 72 of 80 cancers found in the DBT+DM arm and with complete DBT imaging were positive at least at one DBT-alone reading. The greater detection rate for DM+DBT was stronger for ductal carcinoma in situ (+180%, 95% CI: 1, 665); it was notable for small and medium invasive cancers, but not for large ones (+94 [95% CI: 6, 254]; +122 [95% CI: 18, 316]; -12 [95% CI: -68, 141]; for invasive cancers < 10 mm, 10-19 mm, and ≥ 20 mm, respectively). Conclusion DBT+DM depicts 90% more cancers in a population previously screened with DM, with similar recall rates.

show abstract

Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About