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

Nehmat Houssami; Solveig Hofvind; Anne L Soerensen; Kristy P Robledo; Kylie Hunter; Daniela Bernardi; Kristina Lång; Kristin Johnson; Camilla F Aglen; Sophia Zackrisson

doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100804

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

EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Mar 20:34:100804. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100804. eCollection 2021 Apr.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
² Section of Breast Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
³ NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
⁴ Breast Imaging and Screening Unit, Department of Radiology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
⁵ Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Cancer screening; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Interval cancer; Mammography; Meta-analysis.