Contrast-enhanced mammography versus conventional imaging in women recalled from breast cancer screening (RACER trial): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial
Lidewij M.F.H. Neeter , Patricia J. Nelemans , H.P.J. Raat Frank , Caroline Frotscher , Katya M. Duvivier , Brigitte A.B. Essers , Marjolein L. Smidt , Joachim E. Wildberger , Marc B.I. Lobbes
{"title":"Contrast-enhanced mammography versus conventional imaging in women recalled from breast cancer screening (RACER trial): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial","authors":"Lidewij M.F.H. Neeter , Patricia J. Nelemans , H.P.J. Raat Frank , Caroline Frotscher , Katya M. Duvivier , Brigitte A.B. Essers , Marjolein L. Smidt , Joachim E. Wildberger , Marc B.I. Lobbes","doi":"10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Women recalled from breast cancer screening receive post-screening work-up in the hospital with conventional breast imaging. The RACER trial aimed to study whether contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) as primary imaging instead of conventional imaging resulted in more accurate and efficient diagnostic work-up in recalled women.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this randomised, controlled trial (registered under NL6413/NTR6589) participants were allocated using deterministic minimisation to CEM or conventional imaging as a primary work-up tool in two general and two academic hospitals. Predefined patients’ factors were reason for recall, BI-RADS score, and study centre. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of women needing supplemental examinations, and number of days until diagnosis.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Between April, 2018, and September, 2021, 529 patients recalled from the Dutch screening program were randomised, 265 to conventional imaging and 264 to CEM. Three patients in the control arm had to be excluded from analysis due to a protocol breach. After the entire work-up, sensitivity was 98.0% (95% CI; 92.2–99.7%) in the intervention arm and 97.7% (91.8–99.6%) in the control arm (p = 1.0), and specificity was 75.6% (72.5–76.6%) and 75.4% (72.5–76.4%, p = 1.0), respectively. Based on only primary full-field digital mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis or CEM, final diagnosis was reached in 27.7% (73/264) in the intervention arm and 1.1% (3/262) in the control arm. The frequency of supplemental imaging was significantly higher in the control arm (p < 0.0001). Median time needed to reach final diagnosis was comparable: 1 day (control arm: IQR 0–4; intervention arm: IQR 0–3). Thirteen malignant occult lesions were detected using CEM, versus three using conventional imaging. No serious adverse events occurred.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>Diagnostic accuracy of CEM in the work-up of recalled women is comparable with conventional imaging. However, work-up with CEM as primary imaging is a more efficient pathway.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p><span>ZonMw</span> (grant number <span>843001801</span>) and <span>GE Healthcare</span>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":53223,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Regional Health-Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776224001546/pdfft?md5=53961f86668d800668a9d1cf4d634ba6&pid=1-s2.0-S2666776224001546-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Regional Health-Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776224001546","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Women recalled from breast cancer screening receive post-screening work-up in the hospital with conventional breast imaging. The RACER trial aimed to study whether contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) as primary imaging instead of conventional imaging resulted in more accurate and efficient diagnostic work-up in recalled women.
Methods
In this randomised, controlled trial (registered under NL6413/NTR6589) participants were allocated using deterministic minimisation to CEM or conventional imaging as a primary work-up tool in two general and two academic hospitals. Predefined patients’ factors were reason for recall, BI-RADS score, and study centre. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of women needing supplemental examinations, and number of days until diagnosis.
Findings
Between April, 2018, and September, 2021, 529 patients recalled from the Dutch screening program were randomised, 265 to conventional imaging and 264 to CEM. Three patients in the control arm had to be excluded from analysis due to a protocol breach. After the entire work-up, sensitivity was 98.0% (95% CI; 92.2–99.7%) in the intervention arm and 97.7% (91.8–99.6%) in the control arm (p = 1.0), and specificity was 75.6% (72.5–76.6%) and 75.4% (72.5–76.4%, p = 1.0), respectively. Based on only primary full-field digital mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis or CEM, final diagnosis was reached in 27.7% (73/264) in the intervention arm and 1.1% (3/262) in the control arm. The frequency of supplemental imaging was significantly higher in the control arm (p < 0.0001). Median time needed to reach final diagnosis was comparable: 1 day (control arm: IQR 0–4; intervention arm: IQR 0–3). Thirteen malignant occult lesions were detected using CEM, versus three using conventional imaging. No serious adverse events occurred.
Interpretation
Diagnostic accuracy of CEM in the work-up of recalled women is comparable with conventional imaging. However, work-up with CEM as primary imaging is a more efficient pathway.
期刊介绍：
The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, a gold open access journal, is part of The Lancet's global effort to promote healthcare quality and accessibility worldwide. It focuses on advancing clinical practice and health policy in the European region to enhance health outcomes. The journal publishes high-quality original research advocating changes in clinical practice and health policy. It also includes reviews, commentaries, and opinion pieces on regional health topics, such as infection and disease prevention, healthy aging, and reducing health disparities.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
