SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Hofvind Solveig) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Hofvind Solveig)

  • Resultat 1-24 av 24
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Larsen, Marthe, et al. (författare)
  • AI Risk Score on Screening Mammograms Preceding Breast Cancer Diagnosis
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: Radiology. - 1527-1315. ; 309:1, s. 1-8
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background Few studies have evaluated the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in prior screening mammography. Purpose To examine AI risk scores assigned to screening mammography in women who were later diagnosed with breast cancer. Materials and Methods Image data and screening information of examinations performed from January 2004 to December 2019 as part of BreastScreen Norway were used in this retrospective study. Prior screening examinations from women who were later diagnosed with cancer were assigned an AI risk score by a commercially available AI system (scores of 1-7, low risk of malignancy; 8-9, intermediate risk; and 10, high risk of malignancy). Mammographic features of the cancers based on the AI score were also assessed. The association between AI score and mammographic features was tested with a bivariate test. Results A total of 2787 prior screening examinations from 1602 women (mean age, 59 years ± 5.1 [SD]) with screen-detected (n = 1016) or interval (n = 586) cancers showed an AI risk score of 10 for 389 (38.3%) and 231 (39.4%) cancers, respectively, on the mammograms in the screening round prior to diagnosis. Among the screen-detected cancers with AI scores available two screening rounds (4 years) before diagnosis, 23.0% (122 of 531) had a score of 10. Mammographic features were associated with AI score for invasive screen-detected cancers (P < .001). Density with calcifications was registered for 13.6% (43 of 317) of screen-detected cases with a score of 10 and 4.6% (15 of 322) for those with a score of 1-7. Conclusion More than one in three cases of screen-detected and interval cancers had the highest AI risk score at prior screening, suggesting that the use of AI in mammography screening may lead to earlier detection of breast cancers.
  •  
2.
  • Larsen, Marthe, et al. (författare)
  • Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program
  • 2022
  • Ingår i: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 1527-1315 .- 0033-8419. ; 303:3, s. 502-511
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results for cancer detection with mammographic screening. However, evidence related to the use of AI in real screening settings remain sparse. Purpose To compare the performance of a commercially available AI system with routine, independent double reading with consensus as performed in a population-based screening program. Furthermore, the histopathologic characteristics of tumors with different AI scores were explored. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 122 969 screening examinations from 47 877 women performed at four screening units in BreastScreen Norway from October 2009 to December 2018 were included. The data set included 752 screen-detected cancers (6.1 per 1000 examinations) and 205 interval cancers (1.7 per 1000 examinations). Each examination had an AI score between 1 and 10, where 1 indicated low risk of breast cancer and 10 indicated high risk. Threshold 1, threshold 2, and threshold 3 were used to assess the performance of the AI system as a binary decision tool (selected vs not selected). Threshold 1 was set at an AI score of 10, threshold 2 was set to yield a selection rate similar to the consensus rate (8.8%), and threshold 3 was set to yield a selection rate similar to an average individual radiologist (5.8%). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening outcomes. Results A total of 653 of 752 screen-detected cancers (86.8%) and 92 of 205 interval cancers (44.9%) were given a score of 10 by the AI system (threshold 1). Using threshold 3, 80.1% of the screen-detected cancers (602 of 752) and 30.7% of the interval cancers (63 of 205) were selected. Screen-detected cancer with AI scores not selected using the thresholds had favorable histopathologic characteristics compared to those selected; opposite results were observed for interval cancer. Conclusion The proportion of screen-detected cancers not selected by the artificial intelligence (AI) system at the three evaluated thresholds was less than 20%. The overall performance of the AI system was promising according to cancer detection.
  •  
3.
  • Moshina, Nataliia, et al. (författare)
  • Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening : false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial
  • 2024
  • Ingår i: Insights into Imaging. - 1869-4101. ; 15:1
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objectives: The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016–2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error. Methods: Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1–5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review. Results: In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations. Conclusions: The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone. Critical relevance statement: The randomized controlled trial on digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT) and digital mammography (DM), 2016–2017, showed no difference in cancer detection for the two techniques. The rates of false negative screening examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were consistent with the rates in prior DM reviews, indicating that the non-superior DBT performance in the trial might not be due to interpretive error alone. Key points: • Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) did not result in a higher breast cancer detection rate compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) in the To-Be 1 trial. • The false negative rates for examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were determined in the trial to test if the lack of differences was due to interpretive error. • The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT versus DM was complex and not due to interpretive error alone. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)
  •  
4.
  • Baldeh, Tejan, et al. (författare)
  • Development and use of health outcome descriptors : a guideline development case study
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. - : BioMed Central. - 1477-7525. ; 18:1
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: During healthcare guideline development, panel members often have implicit, different definitions of health outcomes that can lead to misunderstandings about how important these outcomes are and how to balance benefits and harms. McMaster GRADE Centre researchers developed ‘health outcome descriptors’ for standardizing descriptions of health outcomes and overcoming these problems to support the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guideline Development Group (GDG). We aimed to determine which aspects of the development, content, and use of health outcome descriptors were valuable to guideline developers.Methods: We developed 24 health outcome descriptors related to breast cancer screening and diagnosis for the European Commission Breast Guideline Development Group (GDG). Eighteen GDG members provided feedback in written format or in interviews. We then evaluated the process and conducted two health utility rating surveys.Results: Feedback from GDG members revealed that health outcome descriptors are probably useful for developing recommendations and improving transparency of guideline methods. Time commitment, methodology training, and need for multidisciplinary expertise throughout development were considered important determinants of the process. Comparison of the two health utility surveys showed a decrease in standard deviation in the second survey across 21 (88%) of the outcomes.Conclusions: Health outcome descriptors are feasible and should be developed prior to the outcome prioritization step in the guideline development process. Guideline developers should involve a subgroup of multidisciplinary experts in all stages of development and ensure all guideline panel members are trained in guideline methodology that includes understanding the importance of defining and understanding the outcomes of interest.
  •  
5.
  • Giordano, Livia, et al. (författare)
  • Mammographic screening programmes in Europe : organization, coverage and participation
  • 2012
  • Ingår i: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 19, s. 72-82
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objectives To summarize participation and coverage rates in population mammographic screening programmes for breast cancer in Europe. Methods We used the European Network for Information on Cancer (EUNICE), a web-based data warehouse (EUNICE Breast Cancer Screening Monitoring, EBCSM) for breast cancer screening, to obtain information on programme characteristics, coverage and participation from its initial application in 10 national and 16 regional programmes in 18 European countries. Results The total population targeted by the screening programme services covered in the report comprised 26.9 million women predominantly aged 50-69. Most of the collected data relates to 2005, 2006 and/or 2007. The average participation rate across all programmes was 53.4% (range 19.4-88.9% of personally invited); or 66.4% excluding Poland, a large programme that initiated personal invitations in 2007. Thirteen of the 26 programmes achieved the European Union benchmark of acceptable participation (>70%), nine achieved the desirable level (>75%). Despite considerable invitation coverage across all programmes (79.3%, range 50.9-115.2%) only 48.2% (range 28.4-92.1%) of the target population were actually screened. The overall invitation and examination coverage excluding Poland was 70.9% and 50.3%, respectively. Conclusions The results demonstrate the feasibility of European-wide screening monitoring using the EBCSM data warehouse, although further efforts to refine the system and to harmonize standards and data collection practices will be required, to fully integrate all European countries. The more than threefold difference in the examination coverage should be taken into account in the evaluation of service screening programmes.
  •  
6.
  • Giorgi Rossi, Paolo, et al. (författare)
  • Recommendations from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer for multigene testing to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer, hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - : Springer. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 124:9, s. 1503-1512
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Predicting the risk of recurrence and response to chemotherapy in women with early breast cancer is crucial to optimise adjuvant treatment. Despite the common practice of using multigene tests to predict recurrence, existing recommendations are inconsistent. Our aim was to formulate healthcare recommendations for the question “Should multigene tests be used in women who have early invasive breast cancer, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy?”Methods: The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guidelines Development Group (GDG), a multidisciplinary guideline panel including experts and three patients, developed recommendations informed by systematic reviews of the evidence. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used. Four multigene tests were evaluated: the 21-gene recurrence score (21-RS), the 70-gene signature (70-GS), the PAM50 risk of recurrence score (PAM50-RORS), and the 12-gene molecular score (12-MS).Results: Five studies (2 marker-based design RCTs, two treatment interaction design RCTs and 1 pooled individual data analysis from observational studies) were included; no eligible studies on PAM50-RORS or 12-MS were identified and the GDG did not formulate recommendations for these tests.Conclusions: The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 21-RS for lymph node-negative women (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence), recognising that benefits are probably larger in women at high risk of recurrence based on clinical characteristics. The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 70-GS for women at high clinical risk (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and recommends not using 70-GS in women at low clinical risk (strong recommendation, low certainty of evidence).
  •  
7.
  • Hofvind, Solveig, et al. (författare)
  • Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance : Randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: BMJ. - 0959-8146. ; 382
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objective: To explore attendance at organised mammographic screening among immigrant groups that received an invitation letter and information leaflet (invitation) in their language of origin and Norwegian compared with Norwegian only. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: Population based screening programme for breast cancer in Norway (BreastScreen Norway), which invites women aged 50-69 to two-view mammographic screening biennially. Participants: All women invited to BreastScreen Norway in the study period April 2021 to June 2022 whose language of origin was Arabic (women born in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, or Morocco), English (women born in the Philippines), Polish (women born in Poland), Somali (women born in Somalia), or Urdu (women born in Pakistan) (n=11 347). Intervention: The study group received an invitation to screening in their language of origin and in Norwegian, whereas the control group received an invitation in Norwegian only during the study period. Main outcome measure: Attendance at BreastScreen Norway during the study period. Results: Overall attendance was 46.5% (2642/5683) in the study group and 47.4% (2682/5664) in the control group. No statistical differences in attendance were observed after stratification by language of invitation, age at invitation, or years since immigration. Conclusions: No difference in attendance was observed between immigrant women invited to BreastScreen Norway in their language of origin and in Norwegian compared with Norwegian only. Several barriers to cancer screening may exist among immigrants, and translating the invitation is probably only a part of a complex explanation. Trial registration: NCT04672265.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04672265.
  •  
8.
  • Holen, Åsne Sørlien, et al. (författare)
  • Early screening outcomes before, during, and after a randomized controlled trial with digital breast tomosynthesis
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Radiology. - 0720-048X. ; 167
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Purpose: To describe and compare early screening outcomes before, during and after a randomized controlled trial with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) including synthetic 2D mammography versus standard digital mammography (DM) (To-Be 1) and a follow-up cohort study using DBT (To-Be 2). Methods: Retrospective results of 125,020 screening examinations from four consecutive screening rounds performed in 2014–2021 were described and compared for pre-To-Be 1 (DM), To-Be 1 (DM or DBT), To-Be 2 (DBT), and post-To-Be 2 (DM) cohorts. Descriptive analyses of rates of recall, biopsy, screen-detected and interval cancer, distribution of histopathologic tumor characteristics and time spent on image interpretation and consensus were presented for the four rounds including five cohorts, one cohort in each screening round except for the To-Be 1 trail, which included a DBT and a DM cohort. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs was calculated for recall and cancer detection rates. Results: Rate of screen-detected cancer was 0.90% for women screened with DBT in To-Be 2 and 0.64% for DM in pre-To-Be 1. The rates did not differ for the To-Be 1 DM (0.61%), To-Be 1 DBT (0.66%) and post-To-Be 2 DM (0.67%) cohorts. The interval cancer rates ranged between 0.13% and 0.20%. The distribution of histopathologic tumor characteristics did not differ between the cohorts. Conclusions: Screening all women with DBT following a randomized controlled trial in an organized, population-based screening program showed a temporary increase in the rate of screen-detected cancer.
  •  
9.
  • Houssami, Nehmat, et al. (författare)
  • Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) in population breast cancer screening : A protocol for a collaborative individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis
  • 2017
  • Ingår i: Translational Cancer Research. - : AME Publishing Company. - 2218-676X .- 2219-6803. ; 6:4, s. 869-877
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: There is accumulating evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis, referred to as 3D-mammography in this protocol, improves screen-detection measures compared to standard 2D-mammography in the context of population screening for breast cancer. However, the effect of 3D-mammography at follow-up of screened women is not yet known: it is unknown whether additional cancer detection from 3D-mammography leads to incremental screening benefit through a reduction of interval cancers, or whether it is mostly over-detecting indolent cancers. Methods: The aim of this study is to examine whether 3D-mammography population screening improves breast cancer screening effectiveness by reducing interval cancer rates compared to standard digital (2D) mammography screening, using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. In this protocol, we outline the research plan which includes systematic identification of studies eligible to contribute data into the IPD meta-analysis, and sourcing and assembling IPD for participants screened with 3D-mammography (3D alone or integrated 2D/3D or integrated 2Dsynthetic/3D) and comparison participants screened with 2D-mammography (standard of care in breast screening). The primary end-point of this work is the interval breast cancer rate per 10,000 screens for 3D-mammography versus 2D-mammography screening. The IPD meta-analysis will also assess secondary outcomes including: screening sensitivity, cancer detection rates, cancer (prognostic) characteristics, and recall rates, for 3D-mammography versus 2D-mammography screening. The use of IPD meta-analysis will allow stratification of results by age and breast density, and will also facilitate analysis of cancer histological (prognostic) characteristics. Discussion: Finalization of data collection procedures and analysis plans will be complete by the end of 2017. Data collection will occur from late 2017 to late 2018 (screen-detection measures: cancer detection and recall data) and from mid-2018 to mid-2019 (interval cancer data). Results of detection measures should be available by 2019, and interval cancer results in 2020. By addressing the critical evidence gap on whether 3D-mammography screening reduces interval cancer rates (compared to 2D-mammography), we expect that our findings will inform timely translation of 3D-mammography technology into breast screening practice in population-based health programs.
  •  
10.
  • Houssami, Nehmat, et al. (författare)
  • Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening : An individual participant data meta-analysis
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: EClinicalMedicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 2589-5370. ; 34
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
  •  
11.
  • Houssami, Nehmat, et al. (författare)
  • Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049. ; 148, s. 14-23
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) screening using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to increase cancer detection compared with mammography; however, it is unknown whether DBT impacts interval cancer rate (ICR). Methods: We systematically identified prospective DBT studies reporting data on screen-detected and interval BCs to perform a study-level meta-analysis of the comparative effect of DBT on ICR in population screening. Meta-analysis of cancer detection rate (CDR), ICR, and the differences between DBT and mammography in CDR and ICR pooled estimates, included random-effects. Sensitivity analysis examined whether study methods (imaging used, comparison group design, interval BC ascertainment) affected pooled estimates. Results: Five eligible prospective (non-randomised) studies of DBT population screening reported on 129,969 DBT-screened participants and 227,882 mammography-only screens, including follow-up publications reporting interval BC data. Pooled CDR was 9.03/1000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.53–9.56) for DBT, and 5.95/1000 (95% CI 5.65–6.28) for mammography: the pooled difference in CDR was 3.15/1000 (95% CI 2.53–3.77), and was evident for the detection of invasive and in-situ malignancy. Pooled ICR was 1.56/1000 DBT screens (95% CI 1.22–2.00), and 1.75/1000 mammography screens (95% CI 1.46–2.11): the estimated pooled difference in ICR was −0.15/1000 (95% CI –0.59 to 0.29) and was not substantially altered in several sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Meta-analysis shows consistent evidence that DBT significantly increased CDR compared with mammography screening; however, there was little difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR. This could suggest, but does not demonstrate, some over-detection. Meta-analysis using individual participant data, randomised trials and comparative studies quantifying cumulative detection and ICR over repeat DBT screen-rounds would provide valuable evidence to inform screening programs.
  •  
12.
  • Hovda, Tone, et al. (författare)
  • Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 1527-1315 .- 0033-8419. ; 294:2, s. 256-264
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose: To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015 (baseline). All women, except nonattendees, women with breast cancer, and those who exceeded the upper age limit, were consecutively screened with DM after 2 years. Interval breast cancer, sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for women screened at baseline. Recall, screen-detected breast cancer, and positive predictive value were analyzed for consecutively screened women. A χ2 test, t test (P < .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a significant difference), and binomial regression model were used to analyze differences across groups. Results: A total of 92 404 women who underwent baseline screening (mean age, 59 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) were evaluated; 34 641 women in the study group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DBT and SM and 57 763 women in the control group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DM. A total of 26 474 women in the study group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) and 45 543 women in the control group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) were consecutively screened with DM. Rates of interval breast cancer were 2.0 per 1000 screened women in the study group and 1.5 per 1000 screened women in the control group (P = .12). No differences in histopathologic characteristics of interval breast cancer were observed. In the consecutive screening round, rates of screen-detected breast cancer were 3.9 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Rates of histologic grade 1 invasive cancer were 0.5 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 1.3 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Conclusion: No differences in interval breast cancer rates or tumor characteristics were observed in women screened with DBT and SM compared with women screened with DM. Higher rates of low-grade screen-detected tumors were observed in the control group at consecutive screening.
  •  
13.
  • Johansson, Henrik J., et al. (författare)
  • Breast cancer quantitative proteome and proteogenomic landscape
  • 2019
  • Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2041-1723. ; 10
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • In the preceding decades, molecular characterization has revolutionized breast cancer (BC) research and therapeutic approaches. Presented herein, an unbiased analysis of breast tumor proteomes, inclusive of 9995 proteins quantified across all tumors, for the first time recapitulates BC subtypes. Additionally, poor-prognosis basal-like and luminal B tumors are further subdivided by immune component infiltration, suggesting the current classification is incomplete. Proteome-based networks distinguish functional protein modules for breast tumor groups, with co-expression of EGFR and MET marking ductal carcinoma in situ regions of normal-like tumors and lending to a more accurate classification of this poorly defined subtype. Genes included within prognostic mRNA panels have significantly higher than average mRNA-protein correlations, and gene copy number alterations are dampened at the protein-level; underscoring the value of proteome quantification for prognostication and phenotypic classification. Furthermore, protein products mapping to non-coding genomic regions are identified; highlighting a potential new class of tumor-specific immunotherapeutic targets.
  •  
14.
  • Larsen, Marthe, et al. (författare)
  • Mammographic density and interval cancers in mammographic screening : Moving towards more personalized screening
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: Breast. - : Elsevier BV. - 0960-9776. ; 69, s. 306-311
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Purpose: The European Society on Breast Imaging has recommended supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) every two to four years for women with mammographically dense breasts. This may not be feasible in many screening programs. Also, the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer suggests not implementing screening with MRI. By analyzing interval cancers and time from screening to diagnosis by density, we present alternative screening strategies for women with dense breasts. Methods: Our BreastScreen Norway cohort included 508 536 screening examinations, including 3125 screen-detected and 945 interval breast cancers. Time from screening to interval cancer was stratified by density measured by an automated software and classified into Volpara Density Grades (VDGs) 1–4. Examinations with volumetric density ≤3.4% were categorized as VDG1, 3.5%–7.4% as VDG2, 7.5%–15.4% as VDG3, and ≥15.5% as VDG4. Interval cancer rates were also determined by continuous density measures. Results: Median time from screening to interval cancer was 496 (IQR: 391–587) days for VDG1, 500 (IQR: 350–616) for VDG2, 482 (IQR: 309–595) for VDG3 and 427 (IQR: 266–577) for VDG4. A total of 35.9% of the interval cancers among VDG4 were detected within the first year of the biennial screening interval. For VDG2, 26.3% were detected within the first year. The highest annual interval cancer rate (2.7 per 1000 examinations) was observed for VDG4 in the second year of the biennial interval. Conclusions: Annual screening of women with extremely dense breasts may reduce the interval cancer rate and increase program-wide sensitivity, especially in settings where supplemental MRI screening is not feasible.
  •  
15.
  • Libesman, Sol, et al. (författare)
  • An individual participant data meta-analysis of breast cancer detection and recall rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening
  • 2022
  • Ingår i: Clinical Breast Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 1526-8209. ; 22:5, s. 647-654
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Although digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer screen-detection compared to digital mammography (DM), there is less evidence on comparative screening outcomes by age and breast density, and inconsistent evidence on its effect on recall rate. Method: We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis from DBT screening studies (identified to November, 30 2019) that contributed to the study protocol. We estimated and compared cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) for recall for DBT and DM screening. Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses of detection outcomes adjusted for study and age, and were estimated in age and density subgroups. Screen-detected cancer characteristics were summarized descriptively within studies and screening-groups. Results: Four prospective studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants and 170,764 DM-screened participants. Age-adjusted pooled CDR difference between DBT and DM was 25.49 of 10,000 (95% CI:6.73-44.25). There was suggestive evidence of a higher CDR for DBT compared to DM in the high-density (35.19 of 10,000; 95% CI:17.82-56.56) compared to low-density (17.4 of 10,000; 95% CI:7.62-27.18) group (P =.08). Pooled CDR difference between DBT and DM did not differ across age-groups (P =.71). Age-adjusted recall rate difference was 0.18% (95% CI:-0.80–1.17), indicating no difference between DBT and DM- this finding did not differ across age-groups (P =.96). Recall PPV was higher for DBT than DM with an estimated rate ratio of 1.31 (95% CI:1.07-1.61). Discussion: DBT improved CDR compared to DM in all age and density groups. DBT also had higher recall PPV than DM, although further research is needed to explore the heterogeneity in recall rates across studies.
  •  
16.
  • Lång, Kristina, et al. (författare)
  • Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI) : a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: The Lancet. Oncology. - 1474-5488. ; 24:8, s. 936-944
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have shown promising results using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve mammography screening accuracy and reduce screen-reading workload; however, to our knowledge, a randomised trial has not yet been conducted. We aimed to assess the clinical safety of an AI-supported screen-reading protocol compared with standard screen reading by radiologists following mammography.METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, population-based trial, women aged 40-80 years eligible for mammography screening (including general screening with 1·5-2-year intervals and annual screening for those with moderate hereditary risk of breast cancer or a history of breast cancer) at four screening sites in Sweden were informed about the study as part of the screening invitation. Those who did not opt out were randomly allocated (1:1) to AI-supported screening (intervention group) or standard double reading without AI (control group). Screening examinations were automatically randomised by the Picture Archive and Communications System with a pseudo-random number generator after image acquisition. The participants and the radiographers acquiring the screening examinations, but not the radiologists reading the screening examinations, were masked to study group allocation. The AI system (Transpara version 1.7.0) provided an examination-based malignancy risk score on a 10-level scale that was used to triage screening examinations to single reading (score 1-9) or double reading (score 10), with AI risk scores (for all examinations) and computer-aided detection marks (for examinations with risk score 8-10) available to the radiologists doing the screen reading. Here we report the prespecified clinical safety analysis, to be done after 80 000 women were enrolled, to assess the secondary outcome measures of early screening performance (cancer detection rate, recall rate, false positive rate, positive predictive value [PPV] of recall, and type of cancer detected [invasive or in situ]) and screen-reading workload. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all women randomly assigned to a group with one complete screening examination, excluding women recalled due to enlarged lymph nodes diagnosed with lymphoma). The lowest acceptable limit for safety in the intervention group was a cancer detection rate of more than 3 per 1000 participants screened. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838756, and is closed to accrual; follow-up is ongoing to assess the primary endpoint of the trial, interval cancer rate.FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2021, and July 28, 2022, 80 033 women were randomly assigned to AI-supported screening (n=40 003) or double reading without AI (n=40 030). 13 women were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 54·0 years (IQR 46·7-63·9). Race and ethnicity data were not collected. AI-supported screening among 39 996 participants resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46 345 screen readings. Standard screening among 40 024 participants resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83 231 screen readings. Cancer detection rates were 6·1 (95% CI 5·4-6·9) per 1000 screened participants in the intervention group, above the lowest acceptable limit for safety, and 5·1 (4·4-5·8) per 1000 in the control group-a ratio of 1·2 (95% CI 1·0-1·5; p=0·052). Recall rates were 2·2% (95% CI 2·0-2·3) in the intervention group and 2·0% (1·9-2·2) in the control group. The false positive rate was 1·5% (95% CI 1·4-1·7) in both groups. The PPV of recall was 28·3% (95% CI 25·3-31·5) in the intervention group and 24·8% (21·9-28·0) in the control group. In the intervention group, 184 (75%) of 244 cancers detected were invasive and 60 (25%) were in situ; in the control group, 165 (81%) of 203 cancers were invasive and 38 (19%) were in situ. The screen-reading workload was reduced by 44·3% using AI.INTERPRETATION: AI-supported mammography screening resulted in a similar cancer detection rate compared with standard double reading, with a substantially lower screen-reading workload, indicating that the use of AI in mammography screening is safe. The trial was thus not halted and the primary endpoint of interval cancer rate will be assessed in 100 000 enrolled participants after 2-years of follow up.FUNDING: Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and the Swedish governmental funding for clinical research (ALF).
  •  
17.
  • Lång, Kristina, et al. (författare)
  • Can artificial intelligence reduce the interval cancer rate in mammography screening?
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 31:8, s. 5940-5947
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objectives To investigate whether artificial intelligence (AI) can reduce interval cancer in mammography screening. Materials and methods Preceding screening mammograms of 429 consecutive women diagnosed with interval cancer in Southern Sweden between 2013 and 2017 were analysed with a deep learning–based AI system. The system assigns a risk score from 1 to 10. Two experienced breast radiologists reviewed and classified the cases in consensus as true negative, minimal signs or false negative and assessed whether the AI system correctly localised the cancer. The potential reduction of interval cancer was calculated at different risk score thresholds corresponding to approximately 10%, 4% and 1% recall rates. Results A statistically significant correlation between interval cancer classification groups and AI risk score was observed (p < .0001). AI scored one in three (143/429) interval cancer with risk score 10, of which 67% (96/143) were either classified as minimal signs or false negative. Of these, 58% (83/143) were correctly located by AI, and could therefore potentially be detected at screening with the aid of AI, resulting in a 19.3% (95% CI 15.9–23.4) reduction of interval cancer. At 4% and 1% recall thresholds, the reduction of interval cancer was 11.2% (95% CI 8.5–14.5) and 4.7% (95% CI 3.0–7.1). The corresponding reduction of interval cancer with grave outcome (women who died or with stage IV disease) at risk score 10 was 23% (8/35; 95% CI 12–39). Conclusion The use of AI in screen reading has the potential to reduce the rate of interval cancer without supplementary screening modalities.
  •  
18.
  • Moshina, Nataliia, et al. (författare)
  • Comparing screening outcomes for digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography by automated breast density in a randomized controlled trial : Results from the to-be trial
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 0033-8419 .- 1527-1315. ; 297:3, s. 522-531
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is considered superior to digital mammography (DM) for women with dense breasts. Purpose: To identify differences in screening outcomes, including rates of recall, false-positive (FP) findings, biopsy, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value of recalls and biopsies, and histopathologic tumor characteristics by density using DBT combined with two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) (hereafter, DBT+SM) versus DM. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial comparing DBT+SM and DM was performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, 2016-2017. Automated software measured density (Volpara Density Grade [VDG], 1-4). The outcomes were compared for DBT+SM versus DM by VDG in descriptive analyses. A stratified log-binomial regression model was used to estimate relative risk of outcomes in subgroups by screening technique. Results: Data included 28 749 women, 14 380 of whom were screened with DBT+SM and 14 369 of whom were screened with DM (both groups: median age, 59 years; interquartile range [IQR], 54-64 years). The recall rate was lower for women screened with DBT+SM versus those screened with DM for VDG 1 (2.1% [81 of 3929] vs 3.3% [106 of 3212]; P = .001) and VDG 2 (3.2% [200 of 6216] vs 4.3% [267 of 6280]; P = .002). For DBT+SM, adjusted relative risk of recall (VDG 2: 1.8; P < .001; VDG 3: 2.4; P < .001; VDG 4: 1.8; P = .02) and screen-detected breast cancer (VDG 2: 2.4; P = .004; VDG 3: 2.8; P = .01; VDG 4: 2.8; P = .05) increased with VDG, whereas no differences were observed for DM (relative risk of recall for VDG 2: 1.3; P = .06; VDG 3: 1.1; P = .41; VDG 4: 1.1; P = .71; and relative risk of screen-detected breast cancer for VDG 2: 1.7; P = .13; VDG 3: 2.1; P = .06; VDG 4: 2.2; P = .15). Conclusion: Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis combined with synthetic two-dimensional mammograms (DBT+SM) versus digital mammography (DM) yielded lower recall rates for women with Volpara Density Grade (VDG) 1 and VDG 2. Adjusted relative risk of recall and screen-detected breast cancer increased with denser breasts for DBT+SM but not for DM.
  •  
19.
  • Muratov, Sergei, et al. (författare)
  • Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes : selecting candidate performance indicators
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: BMC Cancer. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-2407. ; 20:1
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: In the scope of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) subgroup was tasked to identify breast cancer screening programme (BCSP) performance indicators, including their acceptable and desirable levels, which are associated with breast cancer (BC) mortality. This paper documents the methodology used for the indicator selection.Methods: The indicators were identified through a multi-stage process. First, a scoping review was conducted to identify existing performance indicators. Second, building on existing frameworks for making well-informed health care choices, a specific conceptual framework was developed to guide the indicator selection. Third, two group exercises including a rating and ranking survey were conducted for indicator selection using pre-determined criteria, such as: relevance, measurability, accurateness, ethics and understandability. The selected indicators were mapped onto a BC screening pathway developed by the M&E subgroup to illustrate the steps of BC screening common to all EU countries.Results: A total of 96 indicators were identified from an initial list of 1325 indicators. After removing redundant and irrelevant indicators and adding those missing, 39 candidate indicators underwent the rating and ranking exercise. Based on the results, the M&E subgroup selected 13 indicators: screening coverage, participation rate, recall rate, breast cancer detection rate, invasive breast cancer detection rate, cancers >20mm, cancers <= 10mm, lymph node status, interval cancer rate, episode sensitivity, time interval between screening and first treatment, benign open surgical biopsy rate, and mastectomy rate.Conclusion: This systematic approach led to the identification of 13 BCSP candidate performance indicators to be further evaluated for their association with BC mortality.
  •  
20.
  • Sandvei, Marie Søfteland, et al. (författare)
  • Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk : effect modification by body mass through life
  • 2019
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Epidemiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0393-2990 .- 1573-7284. ; 34:3, s. 267-278
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • It is not known whether increased breast cancer risk caused by menopausal hormone therapy (HT) depends on body mass patterns through life. In a prospective study of 483,241 Norwegian women aged 50–69 years at baseline, 7656 women developed breast cancer during follow-up (2006–2013). We combined baseline information on recalled body mass in childhood/adolescence and current (baseline) body mass index (BMI) to construct mutually exclusive life-course body mass patterns. We assessed associations of current HT use with breast cancer risk according to baseline BMI and life-course patterns of body mass, and estimated relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). Within all levels of baseline BMI, HT use was associated with increased risk. Considering life-course body mass patterns as a single exposure, we used women who “remained at normal weight” through life as the reference, and found that being “overweight as young” was associated with lower risk (hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–0.94), whereas women who “gained weight” had higher risk (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12–1.28). Compared to never users of HT who were “overweight as young”, HT users who either “remained at normal weight” or “gained weight” in adulthood were at higher risk than expected when adding the separate risks (RERI 0.52, 95% CI 0.09–0.95, and RERI 0.37, 95% CI − 0.07–0.80), suggesting effect modification. Thus, we found that women who remain at normal weight or gain weight in adulthood may be more susceptible to the risk increasing effect of HT compared to women who were overweight as young.
  •  
21.
  • Schunemann, Holger J., et al. (författare)
  • Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis : A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: Annals of Internal Medicine. - : Amer Coll Physicians. - 0003-4819 .- 1539-3704. ; 172:1, s. 46-56
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers.Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or conditional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence.Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.
  •  
22.
  • Schunemann, Holger J., et al. (författare)
  • Methods for Development of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer Guidelines Recommendations in the Era of Guideline Transparency
  • 2019
  • Ingår i: Annals of Internal Medicine. - : American College of Physicians. - 0003-4819 .- 1539-3704. ; 171:4, s. 273-280
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Neither breast cancer prevention and early-detection programs, nor their outcomes, are uniform across Europe. This article describes the rationale, methods, and process for development of the European Commission ( EC) Initiative on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines. To be consistent with standards set by the Institute of Medicine and others, the EC followed 6 general principles. First, the EC selected, via an open call, a panel with broad representation of areas of expertise. Second, it ensured that all recommendations were supported by systematic reviews. Third, the EC separately considered important subgroups of women, included patient advocates in the guidelines development group, and focused on good communication to inform women's decisions. Fourth, EC rules on conflicts of interest were followed and the GRADE ( Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests. Fifth, it focused its recommendations on outcomes that matter to women, and certainty of the evidence is rated for each. Sixth, the EC elicited stakeholder feedback to ensure that the recommendations remain up to date and relevant to practice. This article describes the approach and highlights ways of disseminating and adapting the recommendations both within and outside Europe, using innovative information technology tools.
  •  
23.
  • Tekpli, Xavier, et al. (författare)
  • An independent poor-prognosis subtype of breast cancer defined by a distinct tumor immune microenvironment
  • 2019
  • Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 10:1
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • How mixtures of immune cells associate with cancer cell phenotype and affect pathogenesis is still unclear. In 15 breast cancer gene expression datasets, we invariably identify three clusters of patients with gradual levels of immune infiltration. The intermediate immune infiltration cluster (Cluster B) is associated with a worse prognosis independently of known clinicopathological features. Furthermore, immune clusters are associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In silico dissection of the immune contexture of the clusters identified Cluster A as immune cold, Cluster C as immune hot while Cluster B has a pro-tumorigenic immune infiltration. Through phenotypical analysis, we find epithelial mesenchymal transition and proliferation associated with the immune clusters and mutually exclusive in breast cancers. Here, we describe immune clusters which improve the prognostic accuracy of immune contexture in breast cancer. Our discovery of a novel independent prognostic factor in breast cancer highlights a correlation between tumor phenotype and immune contexture.
  •  
24.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-24 av 24
Typ av publikation
tidskriftsartikel (21)
forskningsöversikt (3)
Typ av innehåll
refereegranskat (24)
Författare/redaktör
Hofvind, Solveig (24)
Lång, Kristina (11)
Zackrisson, Sophia (7)
Giordano, Livia (6)
Nyström, Lennarth, 1 ... (5)
Broeders, Mireille (5)
visa fler...
Fitzpatrick, Patrici ... (5)
Quinn, Cecily (5)
Borisch, Bettina (5)
Lebeau, Annette (5)
Lee, Christoph I. (5)
Saz-Parkinson, Zulei ... (4)
Ioannidou-Mouzaka, L ... (4)
Warman, Sue (4)
Rossi, Paolo Giorgi (4)
Schunemann, Holger J ... (4)
Canelo-Aybar, Carlos (4)
Alonso-Coello, Pablo (4)
Castells, Xavier (4)
Houssami, Nehmat (4)
Torresin, Alberto (3)
McGarrigle, Helen (3)
Knox, Susan (3)
Langendam, Miranda (3)
Van Landsveld-Verhoe ... (3)
Duffy, Stephen W. (3)
Parmelli, Elena (3)
Moshina, Nataliia (3)
Kristensen, Vessela ... (2)
Lynge, Elsebeth (2)
Nyström, Lennarth (2)
Andersson, Ingvar (2)
Bathen, Tone F (2)
Baldeh, Tejan (2)
Gräwingholt, Axel (2)
Duffy, Stephen (2)
de Wolf, Chris (2)
Piggott, Thomas (2)
Russnes, Hege G (2)
Sardanelli, Francesc ... (2)
Ursin, Giske (2)
Maelandsmo, Gunhild ... (2)
Colzani, Edoardo (2)
Ponti, Antonio (2)
Rigau, David (2)
Posso, Margarita (2)
Daneš, Jan (2)
Van Engen, Ruben (2)
Lingjaerde, Ole Chri ... (2)
Borgen, Elin (2)
visa färre...
Lärosäte
Lunds universitet (15)
Umeå universitet (7)
Uppsala universitet (2)
Karolinska Institutet (2)
Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (1)
Stockholms universitet (1)
Språk
Engelska (24)
Forskningsämne (UKÄ/SCB)
Medicin och hälsovetenskap (23)

År

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy