Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016-2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error. METHODS: Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1-5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review. RESULTS: In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The randomized controlled trial on digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT) and digital mammography (DM), 2016-2017, showed no difference in cancer detection for the two techniques. The rates of false negative screening examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were consistent with the rates in prior DM reviews, indicating that the non-superior DBT performance in the trial might not be due to interpretive error alone. KEY POINTS: • Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) did not result in a higher breast cancer detection rate compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) in the To-Be 1 trial. • The false negative rates for examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were determined in the trial to test if the lack of differences was due to interpretive error. • The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT versus DM was complex and not due to interpretive error alone.

Homologous Recombination Deficiency Across Subtypes of Primary Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is highly prevalent in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and associated with response to PARP inhibition (PARPi). Here, we studied the prevalence of HRD in non-TNBC to assess the potential for PARPi in a wider group of patients with breast cancer. METHODS: HRD status was established using targeted gene panel sequencing (360 genes) and BRCA1 methylation analysis of pretreatment biopsies from 201 patients with primary breast cancer in the phase II PETREMAC trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02624973). HRD was defined as mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, BARD1, or PALB2 and/or promoter methylation of BRCA1 (strict definition; HRD-S). In secondary analyses, a wider definition (HRD-W) was used, examining mutations in 20 additional genes. Furthermore, tumor BRCAness (multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification), PAM50 subtyping, RAD51 nuclear foci to test functional HRD, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL), and PD-L1 analyses were performed. RESULTS: HRD-S was present in 5% of non-TNBC cases (n = 9 of 169), contrasting 47% of the TNBC tumors (n = 15 of 32). HRD-W was observed in 23% of non-TNBC (n = 39 of 169) and 59% of TNBC cases (n = 19 of 32). Of 58 non-TNBC and 30 TNBC biopsies examined for RAD51 foci, 4 of 4 (100%) non-TNBC and 13 of 14 (93%) TNBC cases classified as HRD-S had RAD51 low scores. In contrast, 4 of 17 (24%) non-TNBC and 15 of 19 (79%) TNBC biopsies classified as HRD-W exhibited RAD51 low scores. Of nine non-TNBC tumors with HRD-S status, only one had a basal-like PAM50 signature. There was a high concordance between HRD-S and either BRCAness, high TIL density, or high PD-L1 expression (each P < .001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HRD in non-TNBC suggests that therapy targeting HRD should be evaluated in a wider breast cancer patient population. Strict HRD criteria should be implemented to increase diagnostic precision with respect to functional HRD.

Clonal evolution in primary breast cancers under sequential epirubicin and docetaxel monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Subclonal evolution during primary breast cancer treatment is largely unexplored. We aimed to assess the dynamic changes in subclonal composition of treatment-naïve breast cancers during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed whole exome sequencing of tumor biopsies collected before, at therapy switch, and after treatment with sequential epirubicin and docetaxel monotherapy in 51 out of 109 patients with primary breast cancer, who were included in a prospectively registered, neoadjuvant single-arm phase II trial. RESULTS: There was a profound and differential redistribution of subclones during epirubicin and docetaxel treatment, regardless of therapy response. While truncal mutations and main subclones persisted, smaller subclones frequently appeared or disappeared. Reassessment of raw data, beyond formal mutation calling, indicated that the majority of subclones seemingly appearing during treatment were in fact present in pretreatment breast cancers, below conventional detection limits. Likewise, subclones which seemingly disappeared were still present, below detection limits, in most cases where tumor tissue remained. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) dropped during neoadjuvant therapy, and copy number analysis demonstrated specific genomic regions to be systematically lost or gained for each of the two chemotherapeutics. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential epirubicin and docetaxel monotherapy caused profound redistribution of smaller subclones in primary breast cancer, while early truncal mutations and major subclones generally persisted through treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00496795 , registered on July 4, 2007.

Interval and Subsequent Round Breast Cancer in a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screening.

Background Prevalent 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. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Taourel in this issue.

Digital breast tomosynthesis in a population based mammographic screening program: Breast compression and early performance measures.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if compression force or pressure could be associated with early performance measures for women screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in BreastScreen Norway. Early performance measures included rates of consensus, recall, and screen-detected breast cancer. METHOD: Data on compression force and pressure, compressed breast thickness and breast characteristics were extracted from an automated software for density assessment of DBT screening examinations for 25,286 women. For descriptive analyses, force (Newton, N) and pressure (kilopascal, kPa) were categorized into quartiles. Analyses were stratified by mammographic view, craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO). Logistic regression with restricted cubic splines was used to investigate the association between force and pressure as continuous exposures and early performance measures adjusted for age, compressed breast thickness and fibroglandular volume. RESULTS: Mean age of the screened women was 60.7 (SD = 5.2) years. Mean compression force was 90.8 (SD = 14.2) N for CC and 106.3 (SD = 20.6) N for MLO, and pressure was 11.3 (SD = 3.6) kPa for CC and 8.7 (SD = 2.0) kPa for MLO. The highest rates of screen-detected cancer were observed for low force (1.04 % for <82.5 N for CC and 1.07 % for <92.0 N for MLO) and low pressure (1.07 % for <7.2 kPa for MLO). No association was found between force or pressure as continuous exposures and early performance measures in adjusted regression analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We found the highest rates of screen-detected cancer for low force and pressure, but no significant association between continuous values of force or pressure and early performance measures in DBT. The findings might indicate that the levels of force and pressure in DBT are of lower significance for screening performance than reported in standard digital mammography.

Comparing Screening Outcomes for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography by Automated Breast Density in a Randomized Controlled Trial: Results from the To-Be Trial.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is considered superior to digital mammography (DM) for women with dense breasts. Purpose To identify differences in screening outcomes, including rates of recall, false-positive (FP) findings, biopsy, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value of recalls and biopsies, and histopathologic tumor characteristics by density using DBT combined with two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) (hereafter, DBT+SM) versus DM. Materials and Methods This randomized controlled trial comparing DBT+SM and DM was performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, 2016-2017. Automated software measured density (Volpara Density Grade [VDG], 1-4). The outcomes were compared for DBT+SM versus DM by VDG in descriptive analyses. A stratified log-binomial regression model was used to estimate relative risk of outcomes in subgroups by screening technique. Results Data included 28 749 women, 14 380 of whom were screened with DBT+SM and 14 369 of whom were screened with DM (both groups: median age, 59 years; interquartile range [IQR], 54-64 years). The recall rate was lower for women screened with DBT+SM versus those screened with DM for VDG 1 (2.1% [81 of 3929] vs 3.3% [106 of 3212]; P = .001) and VDG 2 (3.2% [200 of 6216] vs 4.3% [267 of 6280]; P = .002). For DBT+SM, adjusted relative risk of recall (VDG 2: 1.8; P < .001; VDG 3: 2.4; P < .001; VDG 4: 1.8; P = .02) and screen-detected breast cancer (VDG 2: 2.4; P = .004; VDG 3: 2.8; P = .01; VDG 4: 2.8; P = .05) increased with VDG, whereas no differences were observed for DM (relative risk of recall for VDG 2: 1.3; P = .06; VDG 3: 1.1; P = .41; VDG 4: 1.1; P = .71; and relative risk of screen-detected breast cancer for VDG 2: 1.7; P = .13; VDG 3: 2.1; P = .06; VDG 4: 2.2; P = .15). Conclusion Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis combined with synthetic two-dimensional mammograms (DBT+SM) versus digital mammography (DM) yielded lower recall rates for women with Volpara Density Grade (VDG) 1 and VDG 2. Adjusted relative risk of recall and screen-detected breast cancer increased with denser breasts for DBT+SM but not for DM. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sechopoulos and Athanasiou in this issue.

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis is an advancement of mammography, and has the potential to overcome limitations of standard digital mammography. This study aimed to compare first-generation digital breast tomo-synthesis including two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammograms versus digital mammography in a population-based screening programme. METHODS: BreastScreen Norway offers all women aged 50-69 years two-view (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique) mammographic screening every 2 years and does independent double reading with consensus. We asked all 32 976 women who attended the programme in Bergen in 2016-17, to participate in this randomised, controlled trial with a parallel group design. A study-specific software was developed to allocate women to either digital breast tomosynthesis or digital mammography using a 1:1 simple randomisation method based on participants' unique national identity numbers. The interviewing radiographer did the randomisation by entering the number into the software. Randomisation was done after consent and was therefore concealed from both the women and the radiographer at the time of consent; the algorithm was not disclosed to radiographers during the recruitment period. All data needed for analyses were complete 12 months after the recruitment period ended. The primary outcome measure was screen-detected breast cancer, stratified by screening technique (ie, digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography). A log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography, defined as the crude risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for screen-detected breast cancer for women screened during the recruitment period. A per-protocol approach was used in the analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02835625, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between, Jan 14, 2016, and Dec 31, 2017, 44 266 women were invited to the screening programme in Bergen, and 32 976 (74·5%) attended. After excluding women with breast implants and women who did not consent to participate, 29 453 (89·3%) were eligible for electronic randomisation. 14 734 women were allocated to digital breast tomosynthesis and 14 719 to digital mammography. After randomisation, women with a previous breast cancer were excluded (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=314, digital mammography group n=316), women with metastases from melanoma (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=1), and women who informed the radiographer about breast symptoms after providing consent (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=39, digital mammography group n=34). After exclusions, information from 28 749 women were included in the analyses (digital breast tomosynthesis group n=14 380, digital mammography group n=14 369). The proportion of screen-detected breast cancer among the screened women did not differ between the two groups (95 [0·66%, 0·53-0·79] of 14 380 vs 87 [0·61%, 0·48-0·73] of 14 369; RR 1·09, 95% CI 0·82-1·46; p=0·56). INTERPRETATION: This study indicated that digital breast tomosynthesis including synthetic 2D mammograms was not significantly different from standard digital mammography as a screening tool for the detection of breast cancer in a population-based screening programme. Economic analyses and follow-up studies on interval and consecutive round screen-detected breast cancers are needed to better understand the effect of digital breast tomosynthesis in population-based breast cancer screening. FUNDING: Cancer Registry of Norway, Department of Radiology at Haukeland University Hospital, University of Oslo, and Research Council of Norway.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesized two-dimensional mammograms (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population-based screening program for breast cancer and to compare selected secondary screening outcomes for the two techniques. METHODS: This RCT, performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical Health Research Ethics. All screening attendees in Bergen were invited to participate, of which 89% (14,274/15,976) concented during the first year, and were randomized to DBT (n = 7155) or DM (n = 7119). Secondary screening outcomes were stratified by mammographic density and compared using two-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, ANOVA, negative binomial regression and tests of proportions (z tests). RESULTS: Mean reading time was 1 min 11 s for DBT and 41 s for DM (p < 0.01). Mean time spent at consensus was 3 min 12 s for DBT and 2 min 12 s for DM (p < 0.01), while the rate of cases discussed at consensus was 6.4% and 7.4%, respectively for DBT and DM (p = 0.03). The recall rate was 3.0% for DBT and 3.6% for DM (p = 0.03). For women with non-dense breasts, recall rate was 2.2% for DBT versus 3.4% for DM (p = 0.04). The rate did not differ for women with dense breasts (3.6% for both). Mean glandular dose per examination was 2.96 mGy for DBT and 2.95 mGy for DM (p = 0.433). CONCLUSIONS: Interim analysis of a screening RCT showed that DBT took longer to read than DM, but had significantly lower recall rate than DM. We found no differences in radiation dose between the two techniques. KEY POINTS: • In this RCT, DBT was associated with longer interpretation time than DM • Recall rates were lower for DBT than for DM • Mean glandular radiation dose did not differ between DBT and DM.

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future.