The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Sophia Zackrisson, MD, PhD. Photo.

Sophia Zackrisson

Manager

Sophia Zackrisson, MD, PhD. Photo.

Tumor Characteristics and Molecular Subtypes in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis : The Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

Author

  • Kristin Johnson
  • Sophia Zackrisson
  • Aldana Rosso
  • Hanna Sartor
  • Lao H. Saal
  • Ingvar Andersson
  • Kristina Lång

Summary, in English

Background Screening accuracy can be improved with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). To further evaluate DBT in screening, it is important to assess the molecular subtypes of the detected cancers. Purpose To describe tumor characteristics, including molecular subtypes, of cancers detected at DBT compared with those detected at digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods The Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial is a prospective, population-based screening trial comparing one-view DBT with two-view DM. Tumor characteristics were obtained, and invasive cancers were classified according to St Gallen as follows: luminal A-like, luminal B-like human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-negative/HER2-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative cancers. Tumor characteristics were compared by mode of detection: DBT alone or DM (ie, DBT and DM or DM alone). χ2 test was used for data analysis. Results Between January 2010 and February 2015, 14 848 women were enrolled (mean age, 57 years ± 10; age range, 40-76 years). In total, 139 cancers were detected; 118 cancers were invasive and 21 were ductal carcinomas in situ. Thirty-seven additional invasive cancers (36 cancers with complete subtypes and stage) were detected at DBT alone, and 81 cancers (80 cancers with complete stage) were detected at DM. No differences were seen between DBT and DM in the distribution of tumor size 20 mm or smaller (86% [31 of 36] vs 85% [68 of 80], respectively; P = .88), node-negative status (75% [27 of 36] vs 74% [59 of 80], respectively; P = .89), or luminal A-like subtype (53% [19 of 36] vs 46% [37 of 81], respectively; P = .48). Conclusion The biologic profile of the additional cancers detected at digital breast tomosynthesis in a large prospective population-based screening trial was similar to those detected at digital mammography, and the majority were early-stage luminal A-like cancers. This indicates that digital breast tomosynthesis screening does not alter the predictive and prognostic profile of screening-detected cancers.

Department/s

  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö
  • BioCARE: Biomarkers in Cancer Medicine improving Health Care, Education and Innovation
  • Translational Oncogenomics

Publishing year

2019

Language

English

Pages

273-281

Publication/Series

Radiology

Volume

293

Issue

2

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Radiological Society of North America

Topic

  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
  • Cancer and Oncology

Status

Published

Research group

  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö
  • Translational Oncogenomics

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1527-1315