Last updated on November 2019

Digital Tomosynthesis Mammography and Digital Mammography in Screening Patients for Breast Cancer


Brief description of study

This randomized phase III trial studies digital tomosynthesis mammography and digital mammography in screening patients for breast cancer. Screening for breast cancer with tomosynthesis mammography may be superior to digital mammography for breast cancer screening and may help reduce the need for additional imaging or treatment.

Detailed Study Description

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

I. To compare the proportions of participants in the tomosynthesis mammography (TM) and digital mammography (DM) study arms experiencing the occurrence of an ?advanced? breast cancer at any time during a period of 4.5 years from randomization, including the period of active screening and a period of clinical follow-up after the last screen (T4).

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

I. To assess the potential effect of age, menopausal and hormonal status, breast density, and family cancer history on the primary endpoint difference between the two arms.

II. To compare the diagnostic performance of TM and DM, as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

III. To compare the recall rates and biopsy rates for TM versus DM, with subset analyses by the same variables as listed in aim II.

IV. To compare the rate of interval cancers for TM and DM and to assess the mechanism of diagnosis for these interval cancers with categorization by symptomatic versus (vs) asymptomatic, and how detected: diagnosed via physical examination, mammography, ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or other technologies.

V. To examine the correlation between Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) imaging features and histologic and genetic features, such as invasive ductal and invasive lobular histology, high grade, high stage at diagnosis, and aggressive genetic subtypes.

VI. To assess different combinations of TM and synthesized 2 dimensional (2D) or DM in reader studies to assist in determining the optimum balance between diagnostic performance, radiation exposure and technique.

VII. To estimate and compare breast-cancer-specific mortality between the two study arms.

VIII. To estimate and compare the prevalence of breast cancer subtypes (luminal A, luminal B, HER2+, basal-like) low, medium or high proliferation via PAM50 proliferation signatures, and p53 mutant-like or wild-type-like according to a validated p53 dependent signature in the two arms, overall and stratified on whether cancers were detected through screening or as interval cancers, and whether cancers were invasive or in situ.

IX. To classify histologically malignant (true positive cases) and benign lesions (false positive cases) as normal-like or tumor-like using the PAM50 gene expression assay subtype (luminal A, luminal B, HER2, basal-like,), and low, medium, or high proliferation according to PAM50 proliferation signatures, and p53 mutant-like or wild-type-like according to a validated p53-dependent signature.

X. To assess the agreement between local and expert study pathologists for all breast lesions (benign and malignant) biopsied during the 4.5 years of screening with TM or DM.

XI. To create a blood and buccal cell biobank for future biomarker and genetic testing.

XII. To compare health care utilization (including cancer care received) and cost of an episode of breast cancer screening by TM versus DM, overall and within subsets.

XIII. To implement a centralized quality control (QC) monitoring program for both 2D digital mammography (DM) and tomosynthesis (TM), which provides rapid feedback on image quality, using quantitative tools, taking advantage of the automated analysis of digital images.

XIV. To assess temporal and site-to site variations in image quality, breast radiation dose, and other quality control parameters in TM vs. DM.

XV. To refine and implement task-based measures of image quality to assess the effects of technical parameters, including machine type, and detector spatial and contrast resolution on measures of diagnostic accuracy for TM.

XVI. To evaluate which QC tests are useful for determination of image quality and those that are predictive of device failure, in order to recommend an optimal QC program for TM.

OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.

ARM A: Patients undergo bilateral screening DM with standard craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views at baseline, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months if pre-menopausal or at baseline, 24, and 48 months if post-menopausal.

ARM B: Patients undergo manufacturer-defined screening TM at baseline, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months if pre-menopausal or at baseline, 24, and 48 months if post-menopausal.

After completion of study, patients are followed up for at least 4.5-8 years after study entry.

Clinical Study Identifier: NCT03233191

Find a site near you

Start Over

Spartanburg Medical Center

Spartanburg, SC United States
  Connect »

Sentara Leigh Hospital

Norfolk, VA United States
  Connect »

Radiology Imaging Associates

Englewood, CO United States
  Connect »

Decatur Memorial Hospital

Decatur, IL United States
  Connect »

University of Virginia Cancer Center

Charlottesville, VA United States
  Connect »

Carle Cancer Center

Urbana, IL United States
  Connect »

Northside Hospital

Atlanta, GA United States
  Connect »

Penrose-Saint Francis Healthcare

Colorado Springs, CO United States
  Connect »

Queen's Medical Center

Honolulu, HI United States
  Connect »

Woman's Hospital

Baton Rouge, LA United States
  Connect »

Saint Joseph Mercy Hospital

Ann Arbor, MI United States
  Connect »

Bronson Battle Creek

Battle Creek, MI United States
  Connect »

West Michigan Cancer Center

Kalamazoo, MI United States
  Connect »

Hennepin County Medical Center

Minneapolis, MN United States
  Connect »

Park Nicollet Clinic - Saint Louis Park

Saint Louis Park, MN United States
  Connect »

Saint Peter's University Hospital

New Brunswick, NJ United States
  Connect »

Aultman Health Foundation

Canton, OH United States
  Connect »

MUSC Health East Cooper

Mount Pleasant, SC United States
  Connect »

M D Anderson Cancer Center

Houston, TX United States
  Connect »

ProHealth D N Greenwald Center

Mukwonago, WI United States
  Connect »

CERIM

Buenos Aires, Argentina
  Connect »

Maricopa Medical Center

Phoenix, AZ United States
  Connect »

Carle on Fairchild

Danville, IL United States
  Connect »

Henry Ford Hospital

Detroit, MI United States
  Connect »

Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital

West Bloomfield, MI United States
  Connect »

Regions Hospital

Saint Paul, MN United States
  Connect »

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Cleveland, OH United States
  Connect »

Sentara Princess Anne Hospital

Virginia Beach, VA United States
  Connect »