Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening.
Adult
Aged
Breast
/ diagnostic imaging
Breast Density
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
/ diagnostic imaging
Cross-Sectional Studies
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Mammography
/ methods
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Invasiveness
/ diagnostic imaging
Sensitivity and Specificity
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 02 2020
25 02 2020
Historique:
entrez:
26
2
2020
pubmed:
26
2
2020
medline:
12
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography. To compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts. Cross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019. All women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias. The primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity. Among 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15). Among women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32096852
pii: 2761645
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0572
pmc: PMC7276668
mid: NIHMS1578579
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02933489']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
746-756Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180868
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189956
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180795
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA232760
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189828
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180790
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180828
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189819
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233328
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233290
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233270
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180836
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189860
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180791
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180847
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32(22):2304-10
pubmed: 24958821
Radiology. 2016 Sep;280(3):716-22
pubmed: 27097237
Radiology. 2014 Mar;270(3):834-41
pubmed: 24475844
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):297-316
pubmed: 29846940
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 29;351(5):427-37
pubmed: 15282350
JAMA. 2019 Jun 18;321(23):2275-2276
pubmed: 31070674
JAMA. 2008 May 14;299(18):2151-63
pubmed: 18477782
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):75-89
pubmed: 17392385
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 May;164(5):1107-9
pubmed: 7717214
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36
pubmed: 17229950
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 20;28(9):1450-7
pubmed: 20177029
JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507
pubmed: 25058084
Lancet. 2016 Jan 23;387(10016):341-348
pubmed: 26547101
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1493-1503
pubmed: 30322817
Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):223-230
pubmed: 28640695
Radiography (Lond). 2018 Aug;24(3):240-246
pubmed: 29976337
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Dec 1;91(23):2020-8
pubmed: 10580027
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):345-51
pubmed: 10877288
Radiology. 2017 May;283(2):361-370
pubmed: 28221097
Radiology. 2018 Feb;286(2):443-451
pubmed: 29040037
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 20;33(9):1030-7
pubmed: 25646195
J Med Screen. 2015 Mar;22(1):20-7
pubmed: 25492943
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Feb 3;162(3):157-66
pubmed: 25486550
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jun 22;103(12):942-50
pubmed: 21540443
Radiology. 2017 Nov;285(2):376-388
pubmed: 28609204
Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):36-43
pubmed: 28586291
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Mar 04;107(5):
pubmed: 25745020
JAMA. 2004 Sep 15;292(11):1317-25
pubmed: 15367553
Radiology. 2009 Nov;253(2):281-3
pubmed: 19864520
J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:42-56
pubmed: 22972810
JAMA. 2012 Apr 4;307(13):1394-404
pubmed: 22474203
Stat Med. 2014 Jul 20;33(16):2850-75
pubmed: 24648355
Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):44-52
pubmed: 28582633
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Aug 20;28(24):3830-7
pubmed: 20644098
Annu Rev Med. 2019 Jan 27;70:501-519
pubmed: 30691370
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 12;106(10):
pubmed: 25217577
Radiology. 2019 Feb;290(2):340-348
pubmed: 30422091