Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAase, Hildegunn Siv
dc.contributor.authorHolen, åsne Sørlien
dc.contributor.authorPedersen, Kristin
dc.contributor.authorHoussami, Nehmat
dc.contributor.authorHaldorsen, Ingfrid S.
dc.contributor.authorSebuødegård, Sofie
dc.contributor.authorHanestad, Berit
dc.contributor.authorHofvind, Solveig
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-20T11:04:54Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-11T14:09:17Z
dc.date.available2018-12-20T11:04:54Z
dc.date.available2019-02-11T14:09:17Z
dc.date.issued2018-08-29
dc.identifier.citationAase HS, Holen åS, Pedersen K, Houssami N, Haldorsen IS, Sebuødegård S, Hanestad B, Hofvind S. 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. European Radiology. 2018en
dc.identifier.issn0938-7994
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/6605
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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)orDM(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 11s 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 DBTand 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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study has received funding by the Research Council of Norway (Project # 247941).en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Radiology;March 2019, Volume 29, Issue 3
dc.rightsThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectMammographyen
dc.subjectBreast canceren
dc.subjectMass screeningsen
dc.subjectDigital breast tomosynthesisen
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trialsen
dc.titleA 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 trialen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2018-12-20T11:04:54Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x
dc.identifier.cristinID1617798
dc.source.issn0938-7994
dc.source.issn1432-1084
dc.relation.journalEuropean Radiology


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.