Download PDF
Rofo
DOI: 10.1055/a-2544-9085
Breast

Radiological Tumor Signs of Breast Cancer in UICC Stage I: Subanalysis of the Randomized Controlled Trial TOSYMA

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Stefanie Weigel 
1   Clinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Münster, University of Münster Faculty of Medicine, Münster, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN98883)
,
Hans Werner Hense 
2   Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster Faculty of Medicine, Münster, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN98883)
,
Veronika Weyer-Elberich
3   Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster Faculty of Medicine, Münster, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN98883)
,
Joachim Gerss 
3   Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster Faculty of Medicine, Münster, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN98883)
,
Walter Heindel 
1   Clinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Münster, University of Münster Faculty of Medicine, Münster, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN98883)
› Author AffiliationsSupported by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft HE 1646/5-1,HE 1646/5-2

Clinical Trial: Registration number (trial ID): NCT03377036, Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), Type of Study: RCT
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose

The randomized controlled, multicenter TOSYMA study showed a superiority of the combination of digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography (DBT+SM) over digital mammography (DM) in the detection rate of invasive breast cancer at stage UICC I. In this subanalysis, we compared the mammographic tumor signs of UICC I stage breast cancers detected in each study arm and stratified according to histological grade.

Materials and Methods

This subanalysis included 49,462 women in the DBT+SM arm and 49,669 women in the DM arm after 1:1 randomization from July 2018 to December 2020. The mammographic abnormalities documented at the consensus conference were collected for breast cancers in stage UICC I based on various tumor signs (such as masses, microcalcifications, architectural distortions, or their combinations). The detection rates (per 10,000 screened women) were calculated with differentiation of grade 1 and grade 2 or 3 cancers.

Results

Grade 1 cancers were detected using DBT+SM in 6.5/10,000 screened women only by masses (+1.5/10,000 versus DM), in 2.4/10,000 (+1.6/10,000) by architectural distortions, and in 1.2/10,000 (+0.8/10,000) by microcalcifications. Combinations of tumor signs were present in 7.9/10,000 (+6.1/10,000) screened women. Grade 2 or 3 cancers were detected by DBT+SM in 13.7/10,000 by masses (+2.6/10,000 versus DM), in 4.9/10,000 by microcalcifications (+2.3/10,000), and in 3.6/10,000 by architectural distortions (+2.0/10,000). Combinations were present in 10.1/10,000 (+6.3/10,000) screened women.

Conclusion

In DBT+SM screening, the detection rate of UICC I breast cancers is higher compared to DM: both, individual tumor signs and their combinations contribute to this finding. The detection rate of UICC I grade 2 or 3 cancers is higher in DBT+SM screening than in DM screening mainly due to the combination of tumor signs.

Key Points

  • DBT+SM detects more grade 2 or 3-UICC I breast cancers than DM.

  • This increase in detection rate results mainly from a combination of tumor signs.

  • Nearly half of the increase relates to individual signs: masses, microcalcifications, and architectural distortions.

Citation Format

  • Weigel S, Hense HW, Weyer-Elberich V et al. Radiological Tumor Signs of Breast Cancer in UICC Stage I: Subanalysis of the Randomized Controlled Trial TOSYMA. Rofo 2025; DOI 10.1055/a-2544-9085

Keywords

breast - digital radiography - screening - breast cancer - digital breast tomosynthesis - digital mammography


Publication History

Received: 02 September 2024

Accepted after revision: 17 February 2025

Article published online:
26 March 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 IARC. Breast cancer screening: Handbook of Cancer Prevention. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380: 1778-1786
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D. et al. Breast-cancer screening – viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2353-2358
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006. 4th edn.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Zielonke N, Gini A, Jansen EEL. et al. Evidence for reducing cancer-specific mortality due to screening for breast cancer in Europe: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2020; 127: 191-206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S. et al. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ 2015; 351: h4901
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Schwartz AM, Henson DE, Chen D. et al. Histologic grade remains a prognostic factor for breast cancer regardless of the number of positive lymph nodes and tumor size: a study of 161 708 cases of breast cancer from the SEER Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 1048-1052
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH. et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3153-3158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Tabar L, Chen TH, Yen AM. et al. Effect of Mammography Screening on Mortality by Histological Grade. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018; 27: 154-157
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Chong A, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: concepts and clinical practice. Radiology 2019; 292: 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Heindel W, Weigel S, Gerß J. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23: 601-611
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Weigel S, Heindel W, Decker T. et al. TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Group. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography for Detection of Early-Stage Cancers Stratified by Grade: A TOSYMA Subanalysis. Radiology 2023; 309 (03) e231533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Weigel S, Gerss J, Hense HW. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised images versus standard full-field digital mammography in population-based screening (TOSYMA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (05) e020475
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Weigel S, Heindel W, Hense HW. et al. TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Group. Breast Density and Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A TOSYMA Trial Subanalysis. Radiology 2023; 306 (02) e221006
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Weigel S, Hense HW, Weyer-Elberich V. et al. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: Is independent double reading still required?. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 834-842
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Sommer A, Weigel S, Hense HW. et al. TOSYMA Screening Trial Study Group. Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography: results of the TOSYMA Trial breast density related. Eur Radiol 2024; 16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Fitzgibbons PL, Connolly JL, College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the Examination of Biopsy Specimens from Patients with Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast Cancer. 2023 Accessed August 18, 2024 at: https://www.cap.org/protocols-and-guidelines/cancer-reporting-tools/cancer-protocol-templates
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. (Union for International Cancer Control) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2017. 8th Edition.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB. et al. ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013. 5th Edition.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Aase HS, Danielsen AS, Hoff SR. et al. Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2021; 141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG. et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 2015; 19 (04) i-xxv
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Tabar L, Chen HHT, Yan MFA. et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101: 1745-1759
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ. et al. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screeningdetected invasive breast cancer?. AJR 2006; 187: 1377-1380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Moshina N, Backmann HA, Skaane P. et al. Mammographic features and risk of breast cancer death among women with invasive screen-detected cancer in BreastScreen Norway 1996–2020. Eur Radiol 2024; 34: 3364-3374
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Samreen N, Moy L, Lee CS. Architectural Distortion on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Management Algorithm and Pathological Outcome. J Breast Imaging 2020; 2 (05) 424-435
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Kuwabara N, Takuwa H, Takeuchi M. et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis improve identification of malignant calcifications?. Radiol Phys Technol 2020; 13 (03) 249-255
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar