Third national surgical consensus conference of the Italian Association of Breast Surgeons (ANISC) on management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: The difficulty in reaching a consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has a profound impact on surgical management of breast cancer. For this reason, the Italian Association of Breast Surgeons (ANISC) promoted the third national Consensus Conference on this subject, open to multidisciplinary specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Consensus Conference was held on-line in November 2022, and after an introductory session with five core-team experts, participants were asked to vote on eleven controversial issues, while results were collected in real-time with a polling system. RESULTS: A total of 164 dedicated specialists from 74 Breast Centers participated. Consensus was reached for only three of the eleven issues, including: 1) the indication to assess the response with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (79 %); 2) the need to re-assess the biological factors of the residual tumor if present (96 %); 3) the possibility of omitting a formal axillary node dissection for cN1 patients if a pathologic Complete Response (pCR) was confirmed with analysis of one or more sentinel lymph nodes (82 %). The majority voted in favor of mapping both the breast and nodal lesions pre-NAC (59 %), and against the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in cN0 patients in the case of pathologic or clinical Complete Response (69 %). In cases of cT3/cN1+ tumors with pCR, only 8 % of participants considered appropriate the omission of Post-Mastectomy Radiation Therapy. CONCLUSION: There is still a wide variability in surgical approaches after NAC in the "real world". As NAC is increasingly used, multidisciplinary teams should be attuned to conforming their procedures to the rapid advances in this field.

A multicentric, single arm, prospective, stratified clinical investigation to evaluate MammoWave's ability in breast lesions detection.

Microwave imaging is a safe and promising new technology in breast radiology, avoiding discomfort of breast compression and usage of ionizing radiation. This paper presents the first prospective microwave breast imaging study during which both symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects were recruited. Specifically, a prospective multicentre international clinical trial was performed in 2020-2021, to investigate the capability of a microwave imaging device (MammoWave) in allowing distinction between breasts with no radiological finding (NF) and breasts with radiological findings (WF), i.e., with benign or malignant lesions. Each breast scan was performed with the volunteers lying on a dedicated examination table in a comfortable prone position. MammoWave output was compared to reference standard (i.e., radiologic study obtained within the last month and integrated with histological one if available and deemed necessary by responsible investigator) to classify breasts into NF/WF categories. MammoWave output consists of a selection of microwave images' features (determined prior to trials' start), which allow distinction between NF and WF breasts (using statistical significance p<0.05). 353 women were enrolled in the study (mean age 51 years ± 12 [SD], minimum age 19, maximum age 78); MammoWave data from the first 15 women of each site, all with NF breasts, were used for calibration. Following central assessor evaluation, 111 NF (48 dense) and 272 WF (136 dense) breasts were used for comparison with MammoWave output. 272 WF comprised 182 benign findings and 90 malignant histology-confirmed cancer. A sensitivity of 82.3% was achieved (95%CI: 0.78-0.87); sensitivity is maintained when limiting the investigation to histology-confirmed breasts cancer only (90 histology-confirmed breasts cancer have been included in this analysis, having sizes ranging from 3 mm to 60 mm). Specificity value of approximately 50% was achieved as expected, since thresholds were calculated (for each feature) using median value obtained after recruiting the first 15 women (of each site), all NF. This prospective trial may represent another step for introducing microwave imaging into clinical practice, for helping in breast lesion identification in asymptomatic women.

Pathologic response and residual tumor cellularity after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy predict prognosis in breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Residual tumor cellularity (RTC) and pathologic complete response (pCR) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are prognostic factors associated with improved outcomes in breast cancer (BC). However, the majority of patients achieve partial pathologic response (pPR) and no clear correlation between RTC patterns and outcomes was described. Our aims were to define predictive factors for pCR and compare different outcomes of patients with pCR or pPR and with different RTC patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline and post-NAC demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, post-operative data, survival and recurrence status were recorded from our institutional database. A multivariable analysis was performed using a logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of pCR. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS) analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Overall, of the 495 patients analyzed, 148 (29.9%) achieved pCR, 347 (70.1%) had pPR, and the median RTC was 40%. Multivariable analysis identified 3 independent factors predictive of pCR: tumor stage before NAC (cT1-2 84.5% versus cT3-4 15.5%), BC sub-type (HER2-positive 54.7% versus triple-negative 29.8% versus luminal-like 15.5%), and vascular invasion (absence 98.0% versus presence 2.0%). We found statistically significant longer DFS, DDFS, and OS in patients with pCR and with RTC <40%; no difference was observed in terms of OS between RTC <40% and RTC ≥40% groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor stage before NAC, BC sub-type, and vascular invasion are significant and independent factors associated with pCR. Patients with pCR and with RTC <40% have longer DFS, DDFS, and OS compared with patients with pPR.

Loco-Regional Treatment of the Primary Tumor in De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Front-Line Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Loco-regional therapy (LRT) in de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been investigated in several clinical trials, with heterogeneous and conflicting results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of de novo MBC patients treated with front-line chemotherapy (FLC) followed by LRT of the primary tumor. Our aims were to evaluate the characteristics, treatment, and oncological outcomes in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), distant progression-free survival (DPFS), and overall survival (OS) of de novo MBC. We also investigated possible subgroups of patients with better outcomes according to menopausal status, biological sub-type, location, number of metastases, and radiologic complete response after FLC. RESULTS: We included 61 patients in the study. After a median follow-up of 55 months, disease progression occurred in 60.7% of patients and 49.2% died. There were no significant differences in PFS, DPFS, and OS between different subgroups of de novo MBC patients. A trend toward better PFS and DPFS was observed in triple-positive tumors, without a statistically significant difference in OS. CONCLUSIONS: No specific subgroup of de novo MBC patients showed a statistically significant survival advantage after FLC followed by LRT of the primary tumor.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer. METHODS: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms "breast cancer", "preoperative staging", "contrast-enhanced mammography", "contrast-enhanced spectral mammography", "contrast enhanced digital mammography", "contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging" "CEM", "CESM", "CEDM", and "CE-MRI". We selected only those papers comparing the clinical efficacy of CEM and CE-MRI. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. The pooled sensitivities and specificity of CEM and CE-MRI were computed using a random-effects model directly from the STATA "metaprop" command. The between-study statistical heterogeneity was tested (I2-statistics). RESULTS: Nineteen studies were selected for this systematic review. Fifteen studies (1315 patients) were included in the metanalysis. Both CEM and CE-MRI detect breast lesions with a high sensitivity, without a significant difference in performance (97% and 96%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the potential of CEM as a supplemental screening imaging modality, even for intermediate-risk women, including females with dense breasts and a history of breast cancer.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI in the Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is rapidly expanding as a credible alternative to MRI in various clinical settings. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CEM and MRI for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) response assessment in patients with breast cancer. METHODS. This prospective study included 51 patients (mean age, 46 ± 11 [SD] years) with biopsy-proven breast cancer who were candidates for NAT from May 2015 to April 2018. Patients underwent both CEM and MRI before, during, and after NAT (pre-NAT, mid-NAT, and post-NAT, respectively). Post-NAT CEM included a 6-minute delayed acquisition. One breast radiologist with experience in CEM reviewed CEM examinations; one breast radiologist with experience in MRI reviewed MRI examinations. The radiologists assessed for the presence of an enhancing lesion; if an enhancing lesion was detected, its size was measured. RECIST version 1.1 response assessment categories were derived. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of both invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). RESULTS. Of 51 patients, 16 achieved pCR. CEM yielded systematically lower size measurements compared with MRI (mean difference, -0.2 mm for pre-NAT, -0.7 mm for mid-NAT, and -0.3 mm for post-NAT). All post-NAT imaging tests yielded systematically larger size measurements compared with pathology (mean difference, 0.8 mm for CEM, 1.2 mm for MRI, and 1.9 mm for delayed CEM). Of 12 patients with residual DCIS, an enhancing lesion was detected in seven on post-NAT CEM, eight on post-NAT MRI, and nine on post-NAT delayed CEM. Agreement of RECIST response categories between CEM and MRI, expressed as kappa coefficient, was 0.791 at mid-NAT and 0.871 at post-NAT. For detecting pCR by post-NAT imaging, sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 83% for CEM, 100% and 86% for MRI, and 81% and 89% for delayed CEM. Sensitivity was significantly higher for MRI than CEM (p = .001) and delayed CEM (p = .002); remaining comparisons were not significant (p > .05). CONCLUSION. After NAT for breast cancer, CEM and MRI yielded comparable assessments of lesion size (both slightly overestimated vs pathology) and RECIST categories and showed no significant difference in specificity for pCR. MRI had higher sensitivity for pCR. Delayed CEM acquisition may help detect residual DCIS. CLINICAL IMPACT. Although MRI remains the preferred test for NAT response monitoring, the findings support CEM as a useful alternative when MRI is contraindicated or not tolerated.

Structured reporting of x-ray mammography in the first diagnosis of breast cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal.

BACKGROUND: Radiology is an essential tool in the management of a patient. The aim of this manuscript was to build structured report (SR) Mammography based in Breast Cancer. METHODS: A working team of 16 experts (group A) was composed to create a SR for Mammography Breast Cancer. A further working group of 4 experts (group B), blinded to the activities of the group A, was composed to assess the quality and clinical usefulness of the SR final draft. Modified Delphi process was used to assess level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. RESULTS: The final SR version was built by including n = 2 items in Personal Data, n = 4 items in Setting, n = 2 items in Comparison with previous breast examination, n = 19 items in Anamnesis and clinical context; n = 10 items in Technique; n = 1 item in Radiation dose; n = 5 items Parenchymal pattern; n = 28 items in Description of the finding; n = 12 items in Diagnostic categories and Report and n = 1 item in Conclusions. The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 and 807 in the second round. The Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.82 in the second round. About the quality evaluation, the overall mean score of the experts was 3.3. The Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Structured reporting improves the quality, clarity and reproducibility of reports across departments, cities, countries and internationally and will assist patient management and improve breast health care and facilitate research.

An individual participant data meta-analysis of breast cancer detection and recall rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening.

BACKGROUND: Although digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer screen-detection compared to digital mammography (DM), there is less evidence on comparative screening outcomes by age and breast density, and inconsistent evidence on its effect on recall rate. METHOD: We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis from DBT screening studies (identified to November, 30 2019) that contributed to the study protocol. We estimated and compared cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) for recall for DBT and DM screening. Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses of detection outcomes adjusted for study and age, and were estimated in age and density subgroups. Screen-detected cancer characteristics were summarized descriptively within studies and screening-groups. RESULTS: Four prospective studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants and 170,764 DM-screened participants. Age-adjusted pooled CDR difference between DBT and DM was 25.49 of 10,000 (95% CI:6.73-44.25). There was suggestive evidence of a higher CDR for DBT compared to DM in the high-density (35.19 of 10,000; 95% CI:17.82-56.56) compared to low-density (17.4 of 10,000; 95% CI:7.62-27.18) group (P = .08). Pooled CDR difference between DBT and DM did not differ across age-groups (P = .71). Age-adjusted recall rate difference was 0.18% (95% CI:-0.80-1.17), indicating no difference between DBT and DM- this finding did not differ across age-groups (P = .96). Recall PPV was higher for DBT than DM with an estimated rate ratio of 1.31 (95% CI:1.07-1.61). DISCUSSION: DBT improved CDR compared to DM in all age and density groups. DBT also had higher recall PPV than DM, although further research is needed to explore the heterogeneity in recall rates across studies.

Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up. METHODS: Using individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data. FINDINGS: Four prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22-23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89-23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00-10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73-14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88-43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005). INTERPRETATION: Although heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.

Effects of supplementation with kombucha and green banana flour on Wistar rats fed with a cafeteria diet.

INTRODUCTION: With the increase of chronic diseases as a consequence of the population's eating habits, there is also a growing interest in foods rich in bioactive compounds capable of mitigating these diseases. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of supplementation with kombucha and green banana flour (GBF) on Wistar rats fed with cafeteria diet (CAF). METHODS: The animals were randomized into five groups of seven animals each, which were fed with the following diets: Treatment 1 (T1): Control treatment/commercial feed; Treatment 2 (T2): cafeteria diet (CAF); Treatment 3 (T3): CAF + kombucha; Treatment 4 (T4): CAF + green banana flour (GBF); Treatment 5 (T5): CAF + GBF + kombucha. Daily weight gain, daily food consumption, feed conversion, blood glucose, total cholesterol and fractions, triglycerides, liver enzymes, antioxidant activity, and body composition were evaluated. RESULTS: T5 presented lower feed intake and less weight gain. Liver histology revealed vacuolization in all treatments except T1, which was confirmed by the results of liver enzymes. There was no increase in blood glucose, and changes were observed in the lipid profile of the animals. T1 had the lowest body fat and the highest protein levels. Differences were observed for the antioxidant capacity in the liver of animals among treatments. CONCLUSION: The intake of cafeteria diet altered the lipid and liver profile of the animals and the consumption of kombucha and GBF did not prevent these changes. The high polyphenols level of kombucha did not exert a hepatoprotective effect as an antioxidant. However, this supplementation generated greater satiety in the animals, leading to less weight gain until the end of the experiment.

Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer (BC) screening using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to increase cancer detection compared with mammography; however, it is unknown whether DBT impacts interval cancer rate (ICR). METHODS: We systematically identified prospective DBT studies reporting data on screen-detected and interval BCs to perform a study-level meta-analysis of the comparative effect of DBT on ICR in population screening. Meta-analysis of cancer detection rate (CDR), ICR, and the differences between DBT and mammography in CDR and ICR pooled estimates, included random-effects. Sensitivity analysis examined whether study methods (imaging used, comparison group design, interval BC ascertainment) affected pooled estimates. RESULTS: Five eligible prospective (non-randomised) studies of DBT population screening reported on 129,969 DBT-screened participants and 227,882 mammography-only screens, including follow-up publications reporting interval BC data. Pooled CDR was 9.03/1000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.53-9.56) for DBT, and 5.95/1000 (95% CI 5.65-6.28) for mammography: the pooled difference in CDR was 3.15/1000 (95% CI 2.53-3.77), and was evident for the detection of invasive and in-situ malignancy. Pooled ICR was 1.56/1000 DBT screens (95% CI 1.22-2.00), and 1.75/1000 mammography screens (95% CI 1.46-2.11): the estimated pooled difference in ICR was -0.15/1000 (95% CI -0.59 to 0.29) and was not substantially altered in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis shows consistent evidence that DBT significantly increased CDR compared with mammography screening; however, there was little difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR. This could suggest, but does not demonstrate, some over-detection. Meta-analysis using individual participant data, randomised trials and comparative studies quantifying cumulative detection and ICR over repeat DBT screen-rounds would provide valuable evidence to inform screening programs.

Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.

The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) provides recommendations for breast care provision and procedural prioritization during COVID-19 pandemic, being aware that medical decisions must be currently taken balancing patient's individual and community safety: (1) patients having a scheduled or to-be-scheduled appointment for in-depth diagnostic breast imaging or needle biopsy should confirm the appointment or obtain a new one; (2) patients who have suspicious symptoms of breast cancer (in particular: new onset palpable nodule; skin or nipple retraction; orange peel skin; unilateral secretion from the nipple) should request non-deferrable tests at radiology services; (3) asymptomatic women performing annual mammographic follow-up after breast cancer treatment should preferably schedule the appointment within 1 year and 3 months from the previous check, compatibly with the local organizational conditions; (4) asymptomatic women who have not responded to the invitation for screening mammography after the onset of the pandemic or have been informed of the suspension of the screening activity should schedule the check preferably within 3 months from the date of the not performed check, compatibly with local organizational conditions. The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM recommends precautions to protect both patients and healthcare workers (radiologists, radiographers, nurses, and reception staff) from infection or disease spread on the occasion of breast imaging procedures, particularly mammography, breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging, and breast intervention procedures.

Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The Trento screening program transitioned to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening based on evidence that DBT improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography; an evaluation of the transition to DBT is reported in this pilot study. METHODS: Prospective implementation of DBT screening included women aged ≥50 years who attended the Trento program for biennial screening. DBT screening included DBT acquisitions with synthesized 2D-images. A historical cohort of women who attended the program (January 2013-October 2014) and received digital mammography (DM) provided a comparison group. Independent double-reading (with a third arbitrating read for discordance) was used for DBT and DM screening. Screening outcomes included cancer detection rate (CDR/1000 screens), percentage of screens recalled to assessment (recall%), interval cancer rate (ICR/1000 screens) at 2-year follow-up, and screening sensitivity. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) examined outcomes for DBT versus DM screening. RESULTS: From women aged 50-69 years who accepted an invitation to screening (October 2014-October 2016) 46,343 comprised the DBT-screened group: amongst these 402 BCs (includes 50 ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS)) were detected (CDR 8.67/1000), whereas 205 BCs (includes 33 DCIS) were detected amongst 37,436 DM screens (CDR 5.48/1000) [RR for CDR:1.58 (1.34-1.87)]. Recall% was lower for DBT (2.55%) than DM (3.21%) [RR:0.79 (0.73-0.86)]. Compared to DM, DBT screening increased CDR for stage I-II BC, for all tumour size and grade categories, and for node-negative BC, but did not increase CDR for DCIS. Estimated ICR for DBT was 1.1/1000 whereas ICR for DM was 1.36/1000 [RR:0.81 (0.55-1.19)]. Screening sensitivity was 88.74% for DBT versus 80.08% for DM [RR:1.11 (0.94-1.31)]. CONCLUSION: DBT significantly improved early-detection measures but did not significantly reduce ICR (relative to DM screening), suggesting that it could add benefit as well as adding over-detection in population BC screening.

Interference of lipemia in samples for routine coagulation testing using a Sysmex CS-5100 coagulometer.

INTRODUCTION: Lipemia in samples can cause analytical errors in coagulation tests using photometric assays. To define the level of this interference, some studies assessed lipemic interferences by in vitro 'spiking' of different types of lipids obtaining interesting information, but spiked samples do not represent a real-world situation as natively lipemic samples do. METHODS: A total of 101 samples flagged as 'lipemic' by a Sysmex CS-5100 coagulometer were analyzed for PT, aPTT, fibrinogen Clauss assay, antithrombin activity, D-dimer concentration, before and after a double high-speed centrifugation procedure to reduce lipemic interference. We evaluated using Bland-Altman test if high-speed centrifugation and retesting are justified, considering that's a resource-consuming procedure; when a statistically significant difference was found, quality specification for imprecision was considered and compared to the observed delta. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found for PT, antithrombin activity and fibrinogen. Considering the Bland-Altman plot, fibrinogen results were split into two groups, and statistically significant difference was confirmed only for samples >2 g/L. CONCLUSIONS: For PT and antithrombin activity a mean percentual difference between the two determinations lower than within-subject biologic variation and one of the Fraser's quality specifications can be considered as a confounding 'noise' factor that is neither analytically nor clinically relevant. If the instrument determines a result on the first run, for PT, aPTT, D-dimer concentration and antithrombin activity tests, the double plasma high-speed centrifugation is unnecessary. It is instead necessary if fibrinogen >2 g/L or if the instrument cannot determine a result on the first run.

Agreement between digital breast tomosynthesis and pathologic tumour size for staging breast cancer, and comparison with standard mammography.

PURPOSE: Tomosynthesis is proposed to improve breast cancer assessment and staging. We compared tomosynthesis and mammography in estimating the size of newly-diagnosed breast cancers. METHODS: All pathologically-confirmed cancers detected in the STORM-2 trial (90 cancers, 85 women) were retrospectively measured on tomosynthesis by two independent readers. One reader also measured cancers on mammography. Relative mean differences (MDs) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) with pathology were estimated for tomosynthesis and mammography within a single reader (Analysis 1) and between two readers (Analysis 2). RESULTS: Where cancers were detected and hence measured by both tests, tomosynthesis overestimated pathologic size relative to mammography (Analysis 1: MD 5% versus 1%, Analysis 2: 7% versus 3%; P = 0.10 both analyses). There was similar, large measurement variability for both tests (LOA range: -60% to +166%). Overestimation by tomosynthesis was attributable to the subgroup with dense breasts (MDs = 12-13% versus 4% for mammography). There was low average bias for both tests in the low-density subgroup (MDs = 0-4%). LOA were larger in dense breasts for both tomosynthesis and mammography (P ≤ 0.02 all comparisons). Cancers detected only by tomosynthesis were more frequently in dense breasts (60-68%): for those tumours size was estimated with increased measurement variability (LOA ranging from -75% to +293%). CONCLUSIONS: On average, tomosynthesis overestimates pathologic tumour size in women with dense breasts; that difference is more likely to impact management in women with larger tumours. The main advantage of tomosynthesis appears to be detecting mammographically-occult cancers; however tomosynthesis less accurately measured those cancers in dense breasts (large measurement variability).

Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the Screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography-2 (STORM-2) trial, showing that tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening detected more cancers than 2D-mammography in double-reading practice. In this study, we report reader-specific detection measures for radiologists who performed the screen-reading in this trial. METHODS: This is a sub-study of the STORM-2 trial which prospectively integrated 3D-mammography with acquired or synthetized 2D-mammograms in parallel double-reading arms. Asymptomatic women ≥49 years who attended population-based screening (Trento, 2013-2015) were recruited. Screening participants were recalled at any positive sequential screen-read in either reading arm of the trial. Radiologist-specific detection measures were calculated for each of seven radiologists who performed screen-reads: number of detected cancers, proportion of true-positive (TP) detection, and number and rate of false-positive (FP) recalls (FPR). We estimated incremental cancer detection rate (CDR) from integrating 3D-mammography in screen-reading. RESULTS: Across all radiologists, TP detection (relative sensitivity) ranged between: 46% and 100% (median 59.5%) for 2D-mammography; 75% and 100% (median 76%) for integrated 2D/3D-mammography screening; 56% and 76% (median 64%) for 2Dsynthetic; 67% and 88% (median 78%) for 2Dsynthetic/3D-mammography. Integrating 3D-mammography led to incremental CDRs between 0/1000 and 3.5/1000 screens. FPR ranged between: 1.2% and 2.7% (median 2.25%) for 2D-mammography; 1.5% and 3.4% (median 2.75%) for 2D/3D-mammography; 1.6% and 4.6% (median 2.4%) for 2Dsynthetic; and 1.8% and 6.7% (median 3.0%) for 2Dsynthetic/3D-mammography. CONCLUSIONS: There was variability in the magnitude of effect from integrating 3D-mammography (relative to screen-reading with acquired or synthesised 2D-mammography alone) on individual radiologist's TP and FP detection, although there was an overall pattern of increasing cancer detection and also increasing FP recall for most readers.

Systematic review of agreement between tomosynthesis and pathologic tumor size for newly diagnosed breast cancer and comparison with other imaging tests.

INTRODUCTION: Tomosynthesis is proposed to improve breast cancer assessment and staging as a complementary role to its detection capability. We examine the accuracy of tomosynthesis in measuring tumor size relative to pathology and compared with other tests. AREAS COVERED: A systematic literature search identified studies of tomosynthesis in estimating the size of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Descriptive analyses were performed due to heterogeneity in patients, technology, and methods between studies. Eight studies were eligible (678 patients). Mean differences (MDs) between measurements (tomosynthesis-pathology) were generally small; overestimation (MDs of 1-3 mm) and underestimation (-1 mm) were reported. Limits of agreement (LOA) ranged between ±10 mm and ±28 mm. MDs did not differ in high and low breast densities. Large underestimation (-11 mm) and wide LOA (±41 mm) were reported for invasive lobular carcinoma. MDs and LOA were lower for tomosynthesis than mammography, but differences between tests were small. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Although tomosynthesis is a promising technology for assessing breast cancer size, few studies in that context had limitations (small sample sizes, heterogeneous populations, and technologies). Studies using current technology and appropriate statistical methods are required to establish the magnitude of improvement in measurement accuracy, and patients for whom the test may be of most benefit.

What information on measurement uncertainty should be communicated to clinicians, and how?

The communication of laboratory results to physicians and the quality of reports represent fundamental requirements of the post-analytical phase in order to assure the right interpretation and utilization of laboratory information. Accordingly, the International Standard for clinical laboratories accreditation (ISO 15189) requires that "laboratory reports shall include the information necessary for the interpretation of the examination results". Measurement uncertainty (MU) is an inherent property of any quantitative measurement result which express the lack of knowledge of the true value and quantify the uncertainty of a result, incorporating the factors known to influence it. Even if the MU is not included in the report attributes of ISO 15189 and cannot be considered a post-analytical requirement, it is suggested as an information which should facilitate an appropriate interpretation of quantitative results (quantity values). Therefore, MU has two intended uses: for laboratory professionals, it gives information about the quality of measurements, providing evidence of the compliance with analytical performance characteristics; for physicians (and patients) it may help in interpretation of measurement results, especially when values are compared with reference intervals or clinical decision limits, providing objective information. Here we describe the way that MU should be added to laboratory reports in order to facilitate the interpretation of laboratory results and connecting efforts performed within laboratory to provide more accurate and reliable results with a more objective tool for their interpretation by physicians.

Interval breast cancers in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial.

BACKGROUND & METHODS: The prospective 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) trial recruited women participating in biennial breast screening in Italy (2011-2012), and compared sequential screen-readings based on 2D-mammography alone or based on tomosynthesis (integrated 2D/3D-mammography). The STORM trial showed that tomosynthesis screen-reading significantly increased breast cancer detection compared to 2D-mammography alone. The present study completes reporting of the trial by examining interval breast cancers ascertained at two year follow-up. RESULTS: 9 interval breast cancers were identified; the estimated interval cancer rate was 1.23/1000 screens [9/7292] (95%CI 0.56 to 2.34) or 1.24/1000 negative screens [9/7235] (95%CI 0.57 to 2.36). In concurrently screened women who attended the same screening services and received 2D-mammography, interval cancer rate was 1.60/1000 screens [40/25,058] (95% CI 1.14 to 2.17) or 1.61/1000 negative screens [40/24,922] (95% CI 1.15 to 2.18). Estimated screening sensitivity for the STORM trial was 85.5% [59/69] (95%CI 75.0%-92.8%), and that for 2D-mammography screening was 77.3% [136/176] (95%CI 70.4%-83.2%). CONCLUSION: Interval breast cancer rate amongst screening participants in the STORM trial was marginally lower (and screening sensitivity higher) than estimates amongst 2D-screened women; these findings should be interpreted with caution given the small number of interval cases and the sample size of the trial. Much larger screening studies, or pooled analyses, are required to examine interval cancer rates arising after breast tomosynthesis screening versus digital mammography screening.