Organizational impact of systemic implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis as a primary test for breast cancer screening in Italy.
Breast neoplasms
Digital breast tomosynthesis
Digital mammography
Health technology assessment
Mass screening
Organizational impact
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jul 2024
23 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
22
03
2024
accepted:
04
07
2024
medline:
23
7
2024
pubmed:
23
7
2024
entrez:
23
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We present a comprehensive investigation into the organizational, social, and ethical impact of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a primary test for breast cancer screening in Italy. The analyses aimed to assess the feasibility of DBT specifically for all women aged 45-74, women aged 45-49 only, or those with dense breasts only. Questions were framed according to the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EuNetHTA) Screening Core Model to produce evidence for the resources, equity, acceptability, and feasibility domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) decision framework. The study integrated evidence from the literature, the MAITA DBT trials, and Italian pilot programs. Structured interviews, surveys, and systematic reviews were conducted to gather data on organizational impact, acceptability among women, reading and acquisition times, and the technical requirements of DBT in screening. Implementing DBT could significantly affect the screening program, primarily due to increased reading times and the need for additional human resources (radiologists and radiographers). Participation rates in DBT screening were similar, if not better, to those observed with standard digital mammography, indicating good acceptability among women. The study also highlighted the necessity for specific training for radiographers. The interviewed key persons unanimously considered feasible tailored screening strategies based on breast density or age, but they require effective communication with the target population. An increase in radiologists' and radiographers' workload limits the feasibility of DBT screening. Tailored screening strategies may maximize the benefits of DBT while mitigating potential challenges.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39042203
doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01849-0
pii: 10.1007/s11547-024-01849-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : RF-2016-02363686
Investigateurs
Chiara Coriani
(C)
Manuela Pescarolo
(M)
Gloria Stefanelli
(G)
Giulio Tondelli
(G)
Filippo Beretti
(F)
Sabrina Caffarri
(S)
Vanessa Marchesi
(V)
Laura Canovi
(L)
Marco Colli
(M)
Mirco Boschini
(M)
Marco Bertolini
(M)
Moira Ragazzi
(M)
Pierpaolo Pattacini
(P)
Paolo Giorgi Rossi
(P)
Valentina Iotti
(V)
Vladimiro Ginocchi
(V)
Sara Ravaioli
(S)
Rita Vacondio
(R)
Cinzia Campari
(C)
Stefania Caroli
(S)
Andrea Nitrosi
(A)
Luca Braglia
(L)
Silvio Cavuto
(S)
Pamela Mancuso
(P)
Olivera Djuric
(O)
Francesco Venturelli
(F)
Massimo Vicentini
(M)
Maria Barbara Braghiroli
(MB)
Annamaria Pezzarossi
(A)
Jasmine Lonetti
(J)
Elena Davoli
(E)
Efrem Bonelli
(E)
Francesca Fornasa
(F)
Giovanna Romanucci
(G)
Ilaria Lucchi
(I)
Gessica Martello
(G)
Claudia Rossati
(C)
Stefania Montemezzi
(S)
Paola Mantellini
(P)
Daniela Ambrogetti
(D)
Anna Iossa
(A)
Eva Carnesciali
(E)
Vincenzo Mazzalupo
(V)
Patrizia Falini
(P)
Donella Puliti
(D)
Marco Zappa
(M)
Francesca Battisti
(F)
Noemi Auzzi
(N)
Simona Verdi
(S)
Carolina Degl'Innocenti
(C)
Daniela Tramalloni
(D)
Elena Cavazza
(E)
Simone Busoni
(S)
Elisa Betti
(E)
Fiorella Ciuffi
(F)
Francesca Peruzzi
(F)
Francesco Regini
(F)
Francesco Sardanelli
(F)
Giovanni Di Leo
(G)
Luca Alessandro Carbonaro
(LA)
Veronica Magni
(V)
Andrea Cozzi
(A)
Diana Spinelli
(D)
Cristian Giuseppe Monaco
(CG)
Simone Schiaffino
(S)
Adrienn Benedek
(A)
Laura Menicagli
(L)
Raffaella Ferraris
(R)
Elisabetta Favettini
(E)
Davide Dettori
(D)
Paolo Falco
(P)
Pietro Presti
(P)
Nereo Segnan
(N)
Antonio Ponti
(A)
Alfonso Frigerio
(A)
Paola Armaroli
(P)
Loredana Correale
(L)
Vincenzo Marra
(V)
Luisella Milanesio
(L)
Franca Artuso
(F)
Aurora Di Leo
(A)
Isabella Castellano
(I)
Emilia Riggi
(E)
Denise Casella
(D)
Sabina Pitarella
(S)
Viviana Vergini
(V)
Livia Giordano
(L)
Stephen W Duffy
(SW)
Axel Graewingholt
(A)
Kristina Lang
(K)
Fabio Falcini
(F)
Daniela Ambrogetti
(D)
Laura Bonvicini
(L)
Beniamino Brancato
(B)
Matteo Capobussi
(M)
Eva Carnesciali
(E)
Marco Moschetta
(M)
Elena Parmelli
(E)
Loredana Pau
(L)
Stella Pedilarco
(S)
Francesca Pietribiasi
(F)
Stefano Ferretti
(S)
Informations de copyright
© 2024. Italian Society of Medical Radiology.
Références
Lonnberg S, Sekerija M, Malila N, Sarkeala T, Leja M, Májek, O et al (2017) Cancer screening: policy recommendations on governance, organization and evaluation of cancer screening. In book: European Guide on Quality Improvement in Comprehensive Cancer Control (pp.39–76) Chapter: 4 Publisher: National Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Scientific Institute of Public health, Brussels, Belgium. Editors: Tit Albreht, Régine Kiasuwa, Marc Van den Bulcke.
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) (2016) Joint Action 2, Work Package 8: HTA Core Model, v. 3. Available from www.htacoremodel.info/BrowseModel.aspx .
Ko MJ, Park DA, Kim SH, Ko ES, Shin KH, Lim W et al (2021) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 22(8):1240–1252
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.1227
pubmed: 34047504
pmcid: 8316775
Kulkarni S, Freitas V, Muradali D (2022) Digital breast tomosynthesis: potential benefits in routine clinical practice. Can Assoc Radiol J 73(1):107–120
doi: 10.1177/08465371211025229
pubmed: 34229477
SISTEMA NAZIONALE LINEE GUIDA DELL’ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ (SNLG). Linea guida pubblicata nel Sistema Nazionale Linee Guida Roma, 11 agosto 2022. Available at: https://www.iss.it/documents/20126/8331678/LG-507_Screening-e-diagnosi-tumore-mammella.pdf/3bcc763c-82bd-3f58-4ef4-7417306a8740?t=1677495064321
Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA, Manja V et al (2017) GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy. J Clin Epidemiol 81:101–110
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.009
pubmed: 27713072
European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC): European guidelines on breast cancer screening and diagnosis. https://healthcarequality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/ecibc/european-breast-cancer-guidelines
Djuric O, Deandrea S, Mantellini P, Sardanelli F, Venturelli F, Montemezzi S et al (2024) Budget impact analysis of introducing digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening. Radiologia medica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01850-7
Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, Iotti V, Ginocchi V, Ravaioli S et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the reggio emilia tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology 288(2):375–385
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172119
pubmed: 29869961
Armaroli P, Frigerio A, Correale L, Ponti A, Artuso F et al (2022) A randomised controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography as primary screening tests: Screening results over subsequent episodes of the Proteus Donna study. Int J Cancer 151(10):1778–1790
doi: 10.1002/ijc.34161
pubmed: 35689673
Stefano Gherardi, Michela Masè, Giandomenico Nollo e Marta Rigoni. Tomosintesi digitale e screening dei tumori mammari. Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments (RREA) (2019) Available at: https://www.trentinosalute.net/content/download/19965/306876/file/TomosintesiWEB.pdf
The Italian National Agency for Regional Healthcare Services (AGENAS). Report on the national survey of technological resources. Available at: https://www.agenas.gov.it/images/agenas/In%20primo%20piano/ONCOLOGIA/Rapporto_Mammografi.pdf .
Eurostat. Medical technology—historical data (1980–2021) Last update 12/07/2022. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/hlth_rs_equip/default/table?lang=en&category=hlth.hlth_care.hlth_res.hlth_rs_h . Accessed on 25 August 2022.
Battisti F, Mantellini P, Falini P, Ventura L, Giordano L, Saguatti G, Zappa M, Deandrea S, Gorini G (2022) Key performance indicators of breast cancer screening programmes in Italy, 2011–2019. Ann Ist Super Sanita 58(4):244–253
pubmed: 36511195
Clauser P, Baltzer PAT, Kapetas P, Woitek R, Weber M, Leone F, Bernathova M, Helbich TH (2022) One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? Eur Radiol 32(1):661–670
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08079-2
pubmed: 34324025
Houssami N, Lockie D, Clemson M, Pridmore V, Taylor D, Marr G, Evans J, Macaskill P (2019) Pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for population-based screening in BreastScreen Victoria. Med J Aust 211(8):357–362
doi: 10.5694/mja2.50320
pubmed: 31448816
Moger TA, Holen Å, Hanestad B, Hofvind S (2022) Costs and effects of implementing digital tomosynthesis in a population-based breast cancer screening program: predictions using results from the to-be trial in norway. Pharmacoecon Open 6(4):495–507
doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00343-5
pubmed: 35796950
pmcid: 9283618
Aase HS, Holen ÅS, Pedersen K, Houssami N, Haldorsen IS, Sebuødegård S, Hanestad B, Hofvind S (2019) A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial. Eur Radiol 29(3):1175–1186
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x
pubmed: 30159620
Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Romanucci G, Rella R, Cugola L, Bricolo P, Fedato C, Montemezzi S, Houssami N (2018) Digital Breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the verona screening program. Radiology 287(1):37–46
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170745
pubmed: 29237146
Clauser P, Nagl G, Helbich TH, Pinker-Domenig K, Weber M, Kapetas P, Bernathova M, Baltzer PAT (2016) Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Eur J Radiol 85(12):2161–2168
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.004
pubmed: 27842661
Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E, Depaoli M, Larentis L, Malesani V, Targa L, Baldo P, Houssami N (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85(1020):e1174–e1178
doi: 10.1259/bjr/19385909
pubmed: 23175484
pmcid: 3611720
Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, Cohen C, Hakim CM, Sumkin JH, Drescher J, Rockette HE, Gur D (2010) Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 17(4):450–455
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.11.011
pubmed: 20036584
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, Rathfon GY, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Bandos AI (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(2):586–591
doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2031
pubmed: 19620460
Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Gur D (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(4):865–869
doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2841
pubmed: 18356430
Backmann HA, Larsen M, Danielsen AS, Hofvind S (2021) Does it matter for the radiologists’ performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening? Eur Radiol 31(12):9548–9555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08010-9
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08010-9
pubmed: 34110427
pmcid: 8589803
Gao Y, Babb JS, Toth HK, Moy L, Heller SL (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis practice patterns following 2011 FDA approval: a survey of breast imaging radiologists. Acad Radiol 24(8):947–953
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.12.011
pubmed: 28188043
Roux A, Cholerton R, Sicsic J, Moumjid N, French DP, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2022) Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the “My Personal Breast Screening” (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial. BMC Cancer 22(1):507
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09484-6
pubmed: 35524202
pmcid: 9073478
Paci E, Mantellini P, Giorgi Rossi P, Falini P, Puliti D (2013) Tailored breast screening trial (TBST) [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)]. Epidemiol Prev 37(4–5):317–327
pubmed: 24293498
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, Catarzi S, Lamberini MP, Marcelli G, Pellizzoni R, Pesce B, Risso G, Russo F, Scorsolini A (2005) Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 14(4):269–275
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2004.12.004
pubmed: 16085233
Giorgi Rossi P, Djuric O, Hélin V, Astley S, Mantellini P, Nitrosi A, Harkness EF, Gauthier E, Puliti D, Balleyguier C, Baron C, Gilbert FJ, Grivegnée A, Pattacini P, Michiels S, Delaloge S (2021) Validation of a new fully automated software for 2D digital mammographic breast density evaluation in predicting breast cancer risk. Sci Rep 11(1):19884
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99433-3
pubmed: 34615978
pmcid: 8494838
Puliti D, Zappa M, Giorgi Rossi P, Pierpaoli E, Manneschi G, Ambrogetti D, Ventura L, Mantellini P, DENSITY Working Group (2018) Volumetric breast density and risk of advanced cancers after a negative screening episode: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 20(1):95
doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-1025-8
pubmed: 30092817
pmcid: 6085631
Astley SM, Harkness EF, Sergeant JC, Warwick J, Stavrinos P, Warren R, Wilson M, Beetles U, Gadde S, Lim Y, Jain A, Bundred S, Barr N, Reece V, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Howell T, Evans DG (2018) A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 20(1):10
doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-0932-z
pubmed: 29402289
pmcid: 5799922
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71(2):141–150
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008
pubmed: 26707815
Iotti V, Giorgi Rossi P, Nitrosi A, Ravaioli S, Vacondio R, Campari C, Marchesi V, Ragazzi M, Bertolini M, Besutti G, Mori CA, Pattacini P, RETomo Working Group (2019) Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs. Eur Radiol 29(7):3802–3811
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5978-x
pubmed: 30737568
Lång K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM, Larsson S, Högberg C, Sartor H, Hofvind S, Andersson I, Rosso A (2023) Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 24(8):936–944
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00298-X
pubmed: 37541274