Neoadjuvant Trastuzumab, Pertuzumab, and Docetaxel vs Trastuzumab Emtansine in Patients With ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is presently approved for treatment of advanced breast cancer and after incomplete response to neoadjuvant therapy, but the potential of T-DM1 as monotherapy is so far unknown. Objective: To assess pathologic complete response (pCR) to standard neoadjuvant therapy of combination docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (DTP) vs T-DM1 monotherapy in patients with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized phase 2 trial, conducted at 9 sites in Sweden, enrolled 202 patients between December 1, 2014, and October 31, 2018. Participants were 18 years or older, with ERBB2-positive tumors larger than 20 mm and/or verified lymph node metastases. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 6 cycles of DTP (standard group) or T-DM1 (investigational group). Crossover was recommended at lack of response or occurrence of intolerable toxic effects. Assessment with fluorine 18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) was performed at baseline and after 2 and 6 treatment cycles. Main Outcome and Measures: Pathologic complete response, defined as ypT0 or Tis ypN0. Secondary end points were clinical and radiologic objective response; event-free survival, invasive disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival; safety; health-related quality of life (HRQoL); functional and biological tumor characteristics; and frequency of breast-conserving surgery. Results: Overall, 202 patients were randomized; 197 (99 women in the standard group [median age, 51 years (range, 26-73 years)] and 98 women in the investigational group [median age, 53 years (range, 28-74 years)]) were evaluable for the primary end point. Pathologic complete response was achieved in 45 patients in the standard group (45.5%; 95% CI 35.4%-55.8%) and 43 patients in the investigational group (43.9%; 95% CI 33.9%-54.3%). The difference was not statistically significant (P = .82). In a subgroup analysis, the pCR rate was higher in hormone receptor-negative tumors than in hormone receptor-positive tumors in both treatment groups (45 of 72 [62.5%] vs 45 of 125 [36.0%]). Three patients in the T-DM1 group experienced progression during therapy. In an exploratory analysis, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at 10% or more (median) estimated pCR significantly (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.42-5.36; P = .003). Response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET-CT revealed a relative decrease of maximum standardized uptake value by equal to or greater than 68.7% (median) was associated with pCR (odds ratio, 6.74, 95% CI, 2.75-16.51; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with standard neoadjuvant combination DTP was equal to T-DM1. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02568839; EudraCT number: 2014-000808-10.

Early detection of breast cancer rectifies inequality of breast cancer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To explain apparent differences among mammography screening services in Sweden using individual data on participation in screening and with breast cancer-specific survival as an outcome. METHODS: We analysed breast cancer survival data from the Swedish Cancer Register on breast cancer cases from nine Swedish counties diagnosed in women eligible for screening. Data were available on 38,278 breast cancers diagnosed and 4312 breast cancer deaths. Survival to death from breast cancer was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimate, for all cases in each county, and separately for cases of women participating and not participating in their last invitation to screening. Formal statistical comparisons of survival were made using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: All counties showed a reduction in the hazard of breast cancer death with participation in screening, but the reductions for individual counties varied substantially, ranging from 51% (95% confidence interval 46-55%) to 81% (95% confidence interval 74-85%). Survival rates in nonparticipating women ranged from 53% (95% confidence interval 40-65%) to 74% (95% confidence interval 72-77%), while the corresponding survival in women participating in screening varied from 80% (95% confidence interval 77-84%) to 86% (95% confidence interval 83-88%), a considerably narrower range. CONCLUSIONS: Differences among counties in the effect of screening on breast cancer outcomes were mainly due to variation in survival in women not participating in screening. Screening conferred similarly high survival rates in all counties. This indicates that the performance of screening services was similar across counties and that detection and treatment of breast cancer in early-stage reduces inequalities in breast cancer outcome.

External Evaluation of 3 Commercial Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Independent Assessment of Screening Mammograms.

Importance: A computer algorithm that performs at or above the level of radiologists in mammography screening assessment could improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Objective: To perform an external evaluation of 3 commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided detection algorithms as independent mammography readers and to assess the screening performance when combined with radiologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case-control study was based on a double-reader population-based mammography screening cohort of women screened at an academic hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2008 to 2015. The study included 8805 women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent mammography screening and who did not have implants or prior breast cancer. The study sample included 739 women who were diagnosed as having breast cancer (positive) and a random sample of 8066 healthy controls (negative for breast cancer). Main Outcomes and Measures: Positive follow-up findings were determined by pathology-verified diagnosis at screening or within 12 months thereafter. Negative follow-up findings were determined by a 2-year cancer-free follow-up. Three AI computer-aided detection algorithms (AI-1, AI-2, and AI-3), sourced from different vendors, yielded a continuous score for the suspicion of cancer in each mammography examination. For a decision of normal or abnormal, the cut point was defined by the mean specificity of the first-reader radiologists (96.6%). Results: The median age of study participants was 60 years (interquartile range, 50-66 years) for 739 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer and 54 years (interquartile range, 47-63 years) for 8066 healthy controls. The cases positive for cancer comprised 618 (84%) screen detected and 121 (16%) clinically detected within 12 months of the screening examination. The area under the receiver operating curve for cancer detection was 0.956 (95% CI, 0.948-0.965) for AI-1, 0.922 (95% CI, 0.910-0.934) for AI-2, and 0.920 (95% CI, 0.909-0.931) for AI-3. At the specificity of the radiologists, the sensitivities were 81.9% for AI-1, 67.0% for AI-2, 67.4% for AI-3, 77.4% for first-reader radiologist, and 80.1% for second-reader radiologist. Combining AI-1 with first-reader radiologists achieved 88.6% sensitivity at 93.0% specificity (abnormal defined by either of the 2 making an abnormal assessment). No other examined combination of AI algorithms and radiologists surpassed this sensitivity level. Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this study is the first independent evaluation of several AI computer-aided detection algorithms for screening mammography. The results of this study indicated that a commercially available AI computer-aided detection algorithm can assess screening mammograms with a sufficient diagnostic performance to be further evaluated as an independent reader in prospective clinical trials. Combining the first readers with the best algorithm identified more cases positive for cancer than combining the first readers with second readers.

Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women.

BACKGROUND: It is of paramount importance to evaluate the impact of participation in organized mammography service screening independently from changes in breast cancer treatment. This can be done by measuring the incidence of fatal breast cancer, which is based on the date of diagnosis and not on the date of death. METHODS: Among 549,091 women, covering approximately 30% of the Swedish screening-eligible population, the authors calculated the incidence rates of 2473 breast cancers that were fatal within 10 years after diagnosis and the incidence rates of 9737 advanced breast cancers. Data regarding each breast cancer diagnosis and the cause and date of death of each breast cancer case were gathered from national Swedish registries. Tumor characteristics were collected from regional cancer centers. Aggregated data concerning invitation and participation were provided by Sectra Medical Systems AB. Incidence rates were analyzed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Women who participated in mammography screening had a statistically significant 41% reduction in their risk of dying of breast cancer within 10 years (relative risk, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68 [P < .001]) and a 25% reduction in the rate of advanced breast cancers (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84 [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in the incidence rate of breast cancers that were fatal within 10 years after diagnosis and in the advanced breast cancer rate were found in this contemporaneous comparison of women participating versus those not participating in screening. These benefits appeared to be independent of recent changes in treatment regimens.

Localized mammographic density is associated with interval cancer and large breast cancer: a nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density is associated with breast cancer and with delayed detection. We have examined whether localized density, at the site of the subsequent cancer, is independently associated with being diagnosed with a large-sized or interval breast cancer. METHODS: Within a prospective cohort of 63,130 women, we examined 891 women who were diagnosed with incident breast cancer. For 386 women, retrospective localized density assessment was possible. The main outcomes were interval cancer vs. screen-detected cancer and large (> 2 cm) vs. small cancer. In negative screening mammograms, overall and localized density were classified reflecting the BI-RADS standard. Density concordance probabilities were estimated through multinomial regression. The associations between localized density and the two outcomes were modeled through logistic regression, adjusted for overall density, age, body mass index, and other characteristics. RESULTS: The probabilities of concordant localized density were 0.35, 0.60, 0.38, and 0.32 for overall categories "A," "B," "C," and "D." Overall density was associated with large cancer, comparing density category D to A with OR 4.6 (95%CI 1.8-11.6) and with interval cancer OR 31.5 (95%CI 10.9-92) among all women. Localized density was associated with large cancer at diagnosis with OR 11.8 (95%CI 2.7-51.8) among all women and associated with first-year interval cancer with OR 6.4 (0.7 to 58.7) with a significant linear trend p = 0.027. CONCLUSIONS: Overall density often misrepresents localized density at the site where cancer subsequently arises. High localized density is associated with interval cancer and with large cancer. Our findings support the continued effort to develop and examine computer-based measures of localized density for use in personalized breast cancer screening.

Long-term prognostic implications of risk factors associated with tumor size: a case study of women regularly attending screening.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer prognosis is strongly associated with tumor size at diagnosis. We aimed to identify factors associated with diagnosis of large (> 2 cm) compared to small tumors, and to examine implications for long-term prognosis. METHODS: We examined 2012 women with invasive breast cancer, of whom 1466 had screen-detected and 546 interval cancers that were incident between 2001 and 2008 in a population-based screening cohort, and followed them to 31 December 2015. Body mass index (BMI) was ascertained after diagnosis at the time of study enrollment during 2009. PD was measured based on the contralateral mammogram within 3 years before diagnosis. We used multiple logistic regression modeling to examine the association between tumor size and body mass index (BMI), mammographic percent density (PD), or hormonal and genetic risk factors. Associations between the identified risk factors and, in turn, the outcomes of local recurrence, distant metastases, and death (153 events in total) in women with breast cancer were examined using Cox regression. Analyses were carried out according to mode of detection. RESULTS: BMI and PD were the only factors associated with tumor size at diagnosis. For BMI (≥25 vs. < 25 kg/m2), the multiple adjusted odds ratios (OR) were 1.37 (95% CI 1.02-1.83) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.41-3.18), for screen-detected and interval cancers, respectively. For PD (≥20 vs. < 20%), the corresponding ORs were 1.72 (95% CI 1.29-2.30) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.40-0.90). Among women with interval cancers, those with high BMI had worse prognosis than women with low BMI (hazard ratio 1.70; 95% CI 1.04-2.77), but PD was not associated with the hazard rate. Among screen-detected cancers, neither BMI nor PD was associated with the hazard rate. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, high BMI was associated with the risk of having a tumor larger than 2 cm at diagnosis. Among women with interval cancer, high BMI was associated with worse prognosis. We believe that women with high BMI should be especially encouraged to attend screening.

High velocity pulse biopsy device enables controllable and precise needle insertion and high yield tissue acquisition.

Minimally invasive biopsies are a cornerstone of breast cancer management with ultrasound being the preferred guidance modality. New developments in breast cancer management and advances in imaging technologies bring new challenges to current biopsy methodologies. A new biopsy device (NeoNavia® biopsy system, 14 G) was developed. It incorporates a pneumatic needle insertion mechanism that is intended to provide better control of needle progression and enable stepwise insertion without noticeable deformation or displacement of surrounding tissue as visualized under ultrasound. A new method of tissue acquisition was designed to achieve a sampling yield higher than standard methodologies. Needle dynamics was assessed on a specifically designed test bed and sampling performance was compared to a Magnum® biopsy instrument (Bard, Covington, GA, USA) in representative tissue models. The histological quality of samples obtained ex-vivo was evaluated. A pneumatic pulse was measured to accelerate the needle to a maximum velocity of 21.2 ±â€¯2.5 m/s on a stroke length of 2.5 mm, achieving significantly higher acceleration, maximum velocity and power than current biopsy devices. Mean weight of samples obtained by the NeoNavia device were 3.5, 4.6, and 4.3 times higher when sampling was performed in turkey breast, calf thymus and swine pancreas, respectively, as compared to samples obtained with the Magnum instrument. Ex-vivo analysis indicates that the method of tissue acquisition has no apparent negative impact on the histopathologic quality of obtained samples.

Prospective blinded surveillance screening of Swedish women with increased hereditary risk of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of different screening modalities in women with a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Our blinded, prospective, comparative cohort analysis included three types of screening, mammography, ultrasound, and clinical breast examination once per year for 6 years. Eligible patients for this study were healthy women with ≥ 17% lifetime risk of breast cancer or with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. RESULTS: A total of 632 women were screened between 2002 and 2012 (each for 6 years). During the study, 30 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, with 10 of these diagnoses occurring between screening visits, and six of the 10 diagnosed women were gene carriers. The clinical presentation for the women diagnosed with breast cancer was followed until 2017. No consistent patterns for the diagnostic capacity of the different screening modalities were found, although mammography showed low sensitivity, whereas ultrasound showed better sensitivity in three of the six rounds. The specificity was high in mammography and improved in ultrasound over time. Most importantly, clinical breast examination provided no additional information toward the diagnosis of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Neither mammography nor ultrasound performed yearly were sensitive enough as standalone modalities, although high specificity was confirmed. Our findings indicate that high risk (> 29% life time risk) individuals and gene carriers can be screened biannually, using the same protocol as used in mutation carriers. Our results also suggest that low-risk groups (< 20%) may continue to be referred to population mammography screening program, while clinical breast examination may be omitted in all risk groups, and could be optional in gene carriers.

Assessment of early response biomarkers in relation to long-term survival in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: Results from the Phase II PROMIX trial.

Pathologic complete response (pCR) is a predictor for favorable outcome after neoadjuvant treatment in early breast cancer. Modulation of gene expression may also provide early readouts of biological activity and prognosis, offering the possibility for timely response-guided treatment adjustment. The role of early transcriptional changes in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was investigated. One-hundred-and-fifty patients with large, operable and locally advanced HER2-negative breast cancer received epirubicin and docetaxel, with the addition of bevacizumab. Patients underwent tumor biopsies at baseline, after Cycle 2 and at the time of surgery. The primary end point, pCR, and its relation with the secondary endpoints event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and gene expression profiles, are reported. The pCR rate was 13% (95% CI 8.6-20.2), with significantly more pCRs among triple-negative [28% (95% CI 14.8-45.4)] than among hormone receptor positive (HR+) tumors [9% (95% CI 4.6-16.3); (OR = 3.9 [CI = 1.5-10.3])]. pCR rates were not associated with EFS or OS. PAM50 subtypes significantly changed after Cycle 2 (p = 0.03) and an index of absolute changes in PAM50 correlations between these time-points was associated with EFS [HR = 0.62 (CI = 0.3-1.1)]. In univariable analyses, signatures for angiogenesis, proliferation, estrogen receptor signaling, invasion and metastasis, and immune response, measured after Cycle 2, were associated with pCR in HR+ tumors. Evaluation of changes in molecular subtypes and other signatures early in the course of neoadjuvant treatment may be predictive of pCR and EFS. These factors may help guide further treatment and should be considered when designing neoadjuvant trials.

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.

Longitudinal fluctuation in mammographic percent density differentiates between interval and screen-detected breast cancer.

Interval breast cancer (IC) has a more aggressive phenotype and higher mortality than screen-detected cancer (SDC). In this case-case study, we investigated whether the size of longitudinal fluctuations in mammographic percent density (PD fluctuation) was associated with the ratio of IC versus SDC among screened women with breast cancer. The primary study population consisted of 1,414 postmenopausal breast cancer cases, and the validation population of 1,241 cases. We calculated PD fluctuation as the quadratic mean of deviations between actual PD and the long-term trend estimated by a mixed effects model. In a logistic regression model we examined the association between PD fluctuation and IC versus SDC including adjustments for PD at last screening, age at diagnosis, BMI and hormone replacement therapy. All statistical tests were two-sided. There were 385 IC and 1,029 SDC in the primary study population, with PD fluctuations of 0.44 and 0.41 respectively (p = 0.0309). After adjustments, PD fluctuation was associated with an increased ratio of IC versus SDC, with an estimated per-standard deviation odds ratio of 1.17 (95% CI = 1.03-1.33), compared to 1.19 (95% CI = 1.04-1.38) in the validation population. In screened women with breast cancer, high fluctuation in mammographic percent density was associated with an increased ratio of IC versus SDC. Whether this is entirely related to a reduced mammographic detectability or to a biological phenotype promoting faster tumor growth remains to be elucidated.

Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study.

BACKGROUND: Interval breast cancers are often diagnosed at a more advanced stage than screen-detected cancers. Our aim was to identify features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that would differentiate between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers, and to understand how each feature affects tumor detectability. METHODS: From a population-based cohort of invasive breast cancer cases in Stockholm-Gotland, Sweden, diagnosed from 2001 to 2008, we analyzed the contralateral mammogram at the preceding negative screening of 394 interval cancer cases and 1009 screen-detected cancers. We examined 32 different image features in digitized film mammograms, based on three alternative dense area identification methods, by a set of logistic regression models adjusted for percent density with interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer as the outcome. Features were forward-selected into a multiple logistic regression model adjusted for mammographic percent density, age, BMI and use of hormone replacement therapy. The associations of the identified features were assessed also in a sample from an independent cohort. RESULTS: Two image features, 'skewness of the intensity gradient' and 'eccentricity', were associated with the risk of interval compared with screen-detected cancer. For the first feature, the per-standard deviation odds ratios were 1.32 (95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.56) and 1.21 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.41) in the primary and validation cohort respectively. For the second feature, they were 1.20 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.39) and 1.17 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.39) respectively. The first feature was associated with the tumor size at screen detection, while the second feature was associated with the tumor size at interval detection. CONCLUSIONS: We identified two novel mammographic features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that differentiated between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers. We present a starting point for further research into features beyond percent density that might be relevant for interval cancer, and suggest ways to use this information to improve screening.

Autologous Fat Transplantation to the Reconstructed Breast Does not Hinder Assessment of Mammography and Ultrasound: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat transplantation (AFT) to the breast can correct defects and be a part of a breast reconstruction to achieve a better aesthetic result. The impact of AFT on the radiological evaluation and detection of cancer remains unclarified. The aim of this study is to investigate whether AFT induces lasting modifications. METHODS: In the present study, a valuation was performed of 44 breasts from 37 patients examined with mammography and ultrasound before and after autologous fat transplantation. Breast radiologists evaluated the images using a study specific protocol. RESULTS: AFT did not hinder post-operative assessment of mammograms or ultrasound. No detectable changes with serious clinical impact were found after injections of mean 177 ml (34-516) of fat in one to four sessions. The rate of oil cysts was significantly higher after AFT than pre-operatively (2.3 vs. 34.1 % p = 0.0013). Significantly more post-operative oil cysts were detected after injection of larger volumes of fat (144 vs. 243 ml, p = 0.013). No significant differences were found in the post-operative images regarding age at surgery, follow-up time, or time from previous breast surgery. CONCLUSION: AFT does not impair assessment of mammograms and ultrasound in patients who have a history of breast cancer surgery or prophylactic mastectomy.

Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms.

BACKGROUND: Tumor size is crucial for clinical management and prognosis of breast malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The gold standard-size of 12 tumor phantoms was assessed at The Department of Production Engineering. Subsequently, with a conventional ruler, seven experienced mammographers measured the largest diameter of the 12 devices in two independent trials. RESULTS: In the first trial, 30% (n=25) of the 84 values given by the seven mammographers failed to recreate the gold standard size by >1 mm and in the second, by 37% (31/84). Size was overestimated (>1 mm) in 9.5% (n=8) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 15.5% (14/84) in the second. Conversely, size was underestimated (>1 mm) in 20% (n=17) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 21% (18/84) in the second. Neither the age of the participants, nor their years of experience improved the obtained results. DISCUSSION: The method used here raised doubts concerning the ability of discriminating size among subgroups of T1 breast tumors in mammograms. According to the TNM staging system, T1 tumors (≤2.0 cm in greatest dimension) are subdivided into T1mic: microinvasion (≤0.1 cm), T1a (>0.1 cm but not more than 0.5 cm), T1b (>0.5 cm but not more than 1.0 cm) and T1c (>1.0 cm but not more than 2.0 cm in their greatest dimension). Since the TNM staging system for breast tumors is important in therapeutic decision making, it is crucial to develop a more reliable method for tumor size assessment.

Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In accordance with European guidelines, mammography screening comprises independent readings by two breast radiologists (double reading). CAD (computer-aided detection) has been suggested to complement or replace one of the two readers (single reading + CAD).The aim of this systematic review is to address the following question: Is the reading of mammographic x-ray images by a single breast radiologist together with CAD at least as accurate as double reading? METHODS: The electronic literature search included the databases Pub Med, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles. RESULTS: 1049 abstracts were identified, of which 996 were excluded with reference to inclusion and exclusion criteria; 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, four articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and one in a GRADE synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence is insufficient to determine whether the accuracy of single reading + CAD is at least equivalent to that obtained in standard practice, i.e. double reading where two breast radiologists independently read the mammographic images.

Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography.

BACKGROUND: In two-dimensional mammography, a well-known problem is over- and underlying tissue which can either obstruct a lesion or create a false-positive result. Tomosynthesis, with an ability to layer the tissue in the image, has the potential to resolve these issues. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic quality, sensitivity and specificity of a single tomosynthesis mammography image and a traditional two-view set of two-dimensional mammograms and to assess the comfort of the two techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and forty-four women, mainly chosen because of suspicious features on standard mammograms (76 malignant), had a single tomosynthesis image taken of one breast using a novel photon counting system. On average, the dose of the tomosynthesis images was 0.63 times that of the two-view images and the compression force during the procedure was halved. The resulting images were viewed by two radiologists and assessed both individually and comparing the two techniques. RESULTS: In 56% of the cases the radiologists rated the diagnostic quality of the lesion details higher in the tomosynthesis images than in the conventional images (and in 91% equal or higher), which means there is a statistically significant preference for the tomosynthesis technique. This included the calcifications which were rated as having better quality in 41% of the cases. While sensitivity was slightly higher for traditional mammography the specificity was higher for tomosynthesis. However, neither of these two differences was large enough to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The overall accuracy of the two techniques was virtually equal despite the radiologist's very limited experience with tomosynthesis images and vast experience with two-dimensional mammography. As the diagnostic quality of the lesion details in the tomosynthesis images was valued considerably higher this factor should improve with experience. The patients also favored the tomosynthesis examination, rating the comfort of the procedure as much higher than regular mammography which might affect screening attendance.

A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries.

The objective of this study was to assess detection rates and interval breast cancer (IC) rates from eight programmes in the European Breast Cancer Screening Network. A common data collection protocol was used to explore differences in IC rates among programmes and discuss their potential determinants. Pooled analysis was used to describe IC rates by age, compliance in screening, recall rate, screening detection (SD) rate and expected breast cancer incidence. Participation in screening averaged 77.9% (range 42.6-88.7%), recall rate 5.4% (range 3.3-17.7%) in the initial and 3.4% (range 1.8-8.9%) in the subsequent screening rounds, and SD rate was 60.4 (range 41.6-91) per 10 000 women in initial and 38.5 (range 31.3-62.6) in subsequent screens. IC rate during first 12 months after screening was 5.9 (range 2.1-7.3) per 10 000 women screened negative and 12.6 (range 6.3-15) in the second year of the interval. IC comprised 28% of the IC and SD cancers. The ratio between IC rate and expected incidence was 0.29 for the first 12 months and 0.63 for the 13-24 months period. Sensitivity was higher for the ages 60-69 years and for initial tests than subsequent tests. There were distinct differences in the IC rates between programmes. The results of this study reveal large variations in screening sensitivity and performance. Pooled evaluation of some process indicators within the European breast cancer screening programmes proved to be feasible and is likely to be useful for the future, particularly if it is performed regularly and extensively.

Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: breast healthcare program resource allocation.

Breast cancer is serious public health problem in countries of all resource levels. Although major advances in the detection and treatment of the disease have occurred in higher income settings, similar progress has been slow or scarce in most low- and middle-income countries (LMCs). The poorer outcomes in LMCs may relate to the limited capability of their healthcare systems (HCS) to provide successful early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer. Impediments to better outcomes include insufficient numbers of appropriately trained healthcare workers, limited access to screening/treatment facilities, inadequate supplies of necessary drugs, and timeliness of treatment after diagnosis. Clearly, these HCS deficiencies are broader than the scope of the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) and are not unique to the issue of breast cancer. To address issues in HCS that hinder the delivery of breast health services, the BHGI Healthcare Systems and Public Policy Panel explored the HCS structures and function needed to operate a breast care program (BCP). Like with all BHGI guidelines, those proposed by this panel were expressed in terms of 4 strata of resource levels: basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal. The current report describes the issues and questions related to HCS that are important to consider when designing, implementing, and measuring the performance of a BCP. Health ministers, other policymakers, healthcare personnel, administrators, and anyone else involved in developing a BCP can use and adapt this framework to improve outcomes and ensure the more effective use of resources.

Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries: overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit 2007.

Breast cancer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMCs) correlate with the degree to which 1) cancers are detected at early stages, 2) newly detected cancers can be diagnosed correctly, and 3) appropriately selected multimodality treatment can be provided properly in a timely fashion. The Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) invited international experts to review and revise previously developed BHGI resource-stratified guideline tables for early detection, diagnosis, treatment, and healthcare systems. Focus groups addressed specific issues in breast pathology, radiation therapy, and management of locally advanced disease. Process metrics were developed based on the priorities established in the guideline stratification. The groups indicated that cancer prevention through health behavior modification could influence breast cancer incidence in LMCs. Diagnosing breast cancer at earlier stages will reduce breast cancer mortality. Programs to promote breast self-awareness and clinical breast examination and resource-adapted mammographic screening are important early detection steps. Breast imaging, initially with ultrasound and, at higher resource levels with diagnostic mammography, improves preoperative diagnostic assessment and permits image-guided needle sampling. Multimodality therapy includes surgery, radiation, and systemic therapies. Government intervention is needed to address drug-delivery problems relating to high cost and poor access. Guideline dissemination and implementation research plays a crucial role in improving care. Adaptation of technology is needed in LMCs, especially for breast imaging, pathology, radiation therapy, and systemic treatment. Curricula for education and training in LMCs should be developed, applied, and studied in LMC-based learning laboratories to aid information transfer of evidence-based BHGI guidelines.