Aim: The analyses here reported aim to compare the screening performance of digital tomosynthesis (DBT) versus mammography (DM). Methods: MAITA is a consortium of four Italian trials, REtomo, Proteus, Impeto, and MAITA trial. The trials adopted a two-arm randomised design comparing DBT plus DM (REtomo and Proteus) or synthetic-2D (Impeto and MAITA trial) versus DM; multiple vendors were included. Women aged 45 to 69 years were individually randomised to one round of DBT or DM. Findings: From March 2014 to February 2022, 50,856 and 63,295 women were randomised to the DBT and DM arm, respectively. In the DBT arm, 6656 women were screened with DBT plus synthetic-2D. Recall was higher in the DBT arm (5·84% versus 4·96%), with differences between centres. With DBT, 0·8/1000 (95% CI 0·3 to 1·3) more women received surgical treatment for a benign lesion. The detection rate was 51% higher with DBT, ie. 2·6/1000 (95% CI 1·7 to 3·6) more cancers detected, with a similar relative increase for invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. The results were similar below and over the age of 50, at first and subsequent rounds, and with DBT plus DM and DBT plus synthetic-2D. No learning curve was appreciable. Detection of cancers >= 20 mm, with 2 or more positive lymph nodes, grade III, HER2-positive, or triple-negative was similar in the two arms. Interpretation: Results from MAITA confirm that DBT is superior to DM for the detection of cancers, with a possible increase in recall rate. DBT performance in screening should be assessed locally while waiting for long-term follow-up results on the impact of advanced cancer incidence.
Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium / Giorgi Rossi, Paolo; Mancuso, Pamela; Pattacini, Pierpaolo; Campari, Cinzia; Nitrosi, Andrea; Iotti, Valentina; Ponti, Antonio; Frigerio, Alfonso; Correale, Loredana; Riggi, Emilia; Giordano, Livia; Segnan, Nereo; Di Leo, Giovanni; Magni, Veronica; Sardanelli, Francesco; Fornasa, Francesca; Romanucci, Giovanna; Montemezzi, Stefania; Falini, Patrizia; Auzzi, Noemi; Zappa, Marco; Ottone, Marta; Mantellini, Paola; Duffy, Stephen W; Armaroli, Paola; Coriani, Chiara; Pescarolo, Manuela; Stefanelli, Gloria; Tondelli, Giulio; Beretti, Filippo; Caffarri, Sabrina; Marchesi, Vanessa; Canovi, Laura; Colli, Marco; Boschini, Mirco; Bertolini, Marco; Ragazzi, Moira; Pattacini, Pierpaolo; Giorgi Rossi, Paolo; Iotti, Valentina; Ginocchi, Vladimiro; Ravaioli, Sara; Vacondio, Rita; Campari, Cinzia; Caroli, Stefania; Nitrosi, Andrea; Braglia, Luca; Cavuto, Silvio; Mancuso, Pamela; Djuric, Olivera; Venturelli, Francesco; Vicentini, Massimo; Braghiroli, Maria Barbara; Lonetti, Jasmine; Davoli, Elena; Bonelli, Efrem; Fornasa, Francesca; Montemezzi, Stefania; Romanucci, Giovanna; Lucchi, Ilaria; Martello, Gessica; Rossati, Claudia; Mantellini, Paola; Ambrogetti, Daniela; Iossa, Anna; Carnesciali, Eva; Mazzalupo, Vincenzo; Falini, Patrizia; Puliti, Donella; Zappa, Marco; Battisti, Francesca; Auzzi, Noemi; Verdi, Simona; Degl'Innocenti, Carolina; Tramalloni, Daniela; Cavazza, Elena; Busoni, Simone; Betti, Elisa; Peruzzi, Francesca; Regini, Francesco; Sardanelli, Francesco; Di Leo, Giovanni; Carbonaro, Luca Alessandro; Magni, Veronica; Cozzi, Andrea; Spinelli, Diana; Monaco, Cristian Giuseppe; Schiaffino, Simone; Benedek, Adrienn; Menicagli, Laura; Ferraris, Raffaella; Favettini, Elisabetta; Dettori, Davide; Falco, Paolo; Presti, Pietro; Segnan, Nereo; Ponti, Antonio; Frigerio, Alfonso; Armaroli, Paola; Correale, Loredana; Marra, Vincenzo; Milanesio, Luisella; Artuso, Franca; Di Leo, Aurora; Castellano, Isabella; Riggi, Emilia; Casella, Denise; Pitarella, Sabina; Vergini, Viviana; Giordano, Livia; Duffy, Stephen W; Graewingholt, Axel; Lang, Kristina; Falcini, Fabio. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0959-8049. - 199:(2024), pp. 113553-113553. [10.1016/j.ejca.2024.113553]
Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium
Iotti, Valentina;Di Leo, Giovanni;Ottone, Marta;Marchesi, Vanessa;Ragazzi, Moira;Iotti, Valentina;Ravaioli, Sara;Cavuto, Silvio;Venturelli, Francesco;Davoli, Elena;Battisti, Francesca;Di Leo, Giovanni;
2024
Abstract
Aim: The analyses here reported aim to compare the screening performance of digital tomosynthesis (DBT) versus mammography (DM). Methods: MAITA is a consortium of four Italian trials, REtomo, Proteus, Impeto, and MAITA trial. The trials adopted a two-arm randomised design comparing DBT plus DM (REtomo and Proteus) or synthetic-2D (Impeto and MAITA trial) versus DM; multiple vendors were included. Women aged 45 to 69 years were individually randomised to one round of DBT or DM. Findings: From March 2014 to February 2022, 50,856 and 63,295 women were randomised to the DBT and DM arm, respectively. In the DBT arm, 6656 women were screened with DBT plus synthetic-2D. Recall was higher in the DBT arm (5·84% versus 4·96%), with differences between centres. With DBT, 0·8/1000 (95% CI 0·3 to 1·3) more women received surgical treatment for a benign lesion. The detection rate was 51% higher with DBT, ie. 2·6/1000 (95% CI 1·7 to 3·6) more cancers detected, with a similar relative increase for invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. The results were similar below and over the age of 50, at first and subsequent rounds, and with DBT plus DM and DBT plus synthetic-2D. No learning curve was appreciable. Detection of cancers >= 20 mm, with 2 or more positive lymph nodes, grade III, HER2-positive, or triple-negative was similar in the two arms. Interpretation: Results from MAITA confirm that DBT is superior to DM for the detection of cancers, with a possible increase in recall rate. DBT performance in screening should be assessed locally while waiting for long-term follow-up results on the impact of advanced cancer incidence.
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris
