Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium.

The analyses here reported aim to compare the screening performance of digital tomosynthesis (DBT) versus mammography (DM). MAITA is a consortium of four Italian trials, REtomo, Proteus, Impeto, and MAITA trial. The trials adopted a two-arm randomised design comparing DBT plus DM (REtomo and Proteus) or synthetic-2D (Impeto and MAITA trial) versus DM; multiple vendors were included. Women aged 45 to 69 years were individually randomised to one round of DBT or DM. From March 2014 to February 2022, 50,856 and 63,295 women were randomised to the DBT and DM arm, respectively. In the DBT arm, 6656 women were screened with DBT plus synthetic-2D. Recall was higher in the DBT arm (5·84% versus 4·96%), with differences between centres. With DBT, 0·8/1000 (95% CI 0·3 to 1·3) more women received surgical treatment for a benign lesion. The detection rate was 51% higher with DBT, ie. 2·6/1000 (95% CI 1·7 to 3·6) more cancers detected, with a similar relative increase for invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. The results were similar below and over the age of 50, at first and subsequent rounds, and with DBT plus DM and DBT plus synthetic-2D. No learning curve was appreciable. Detection of cancers >= 20 mm, with 2 or more positive lymph nodes, grade III, HER2-positive, or triple-negative was similar in the two arms. Results from MAITA confirm that DBT is superior to DM for the detection of cancers, with a possible increase in recall rate. DBT performance in screening should be assessed locally while waiting for long-term follow-up results on the impact of advanced cancer incidence.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Paolo Giorgi Rossi reports financial support was provided by Italian Ministry of Health. Pierpaolo Pattacini reports was provided by Emilia-Romagna Regional Health Authority. Antonio Ponti reports financial support was provided by Piedmont Region (Department of Health). Antonio Ponti reports financial support was provided by foundation Edo Tempia (a non-profit organisation). Antonio Ponti reports equipment, drugs, or supplies was provided by Regional Consortium for Informative Systems (CSI). Antonio Ponti reports financial support was provided by University of Turin. Paola Mantellini reports financial support was provided by Tuscany Region. Pierpaolo Pattacini reports equipment, drugs, or supplies and travel were provided by GE Healthcare. Antonio Ponti reports equipment, drugs, or supplies was provided by im3D S.p.A Torino. Stephen Duffy has received indirect funding in the past from Hologic Inc. Valentina Iotti, Andrea Nitrosi reports travel was provided by GE Healthcare. Pierpaolo Pattacini, Valentina Iotti, Andrea Nitrosi, Francesco Sardanelli reports a relationship with GE Healthcare that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Valentina Iotti reports a relationship with Bayer that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Livia Giordano, Stephen Duffy, and Francesco Sardanelli are members of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer working groups. They contributed to the development of new breast cancer screening recommendations and quality assurance scheme. Livia Giordano is past president of the Gruppo Italiano Screening Mammografico, the Italian scientific society on breast cancer screening. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.