Predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Can the addition of tomosynthesis improve the accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? A comparison with breast MRI.

OBJECTIVES: Image monitoring is essential to monitor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Whilst breast MRI is the gold-standard technique, evidence suggests contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is comparable. We investigate whether the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to CESM increases the accuracy of response prediction. METHODS: Women receiving NACT for breast cancer were included. Imaging with CESM+DBT and MRI was performed post-NACT. Imaging appearance was compared with pathological specimens. Accuracy for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) and concordance with size of residual disease was calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen cancers in 14 patients were included, 10 demonstrated pCR. Greatest accuracy for predicting pCR was with CESM enhancement (accuracy: 81.3%, sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 57.1%), followed by MRI (accuracy: 62.5%, sensitivity: 44.4%, specificity: 85.7%). Concordance with invasive tumour size was greater for CESM enhancement than MRI, concordance-coefficients 0.70 vs 0.66 respectively. MRI demonstrated greatest concordance with whole tumour size followed by CESM+microcalcification, concordance coefficients 0.86 vs 0.69. DBT did not improve accuracy for prediction of pCR or residual disease size. CESM+DBT underestimated size of residual disease, MRI overestimated but no significant differences were seen (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CESM is similar to MRI for predicting residual disease post-NACT. Size of enhancement alone demonstrates best concordance with invasive disease. Inclusion of residual microcalcification improves concordance with ductal carcinoma in situ. The addition of DBT to CESM does not improve accuracy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The addition ofDBT to CESM does not improve NACT response prediction. CESM enhancement has greatest accuracy for residual invasive disease, CESM+calcification has greater accuracy for residual in situ disease.

A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials.

BACKGROUND: Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. RESULTS: We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0-10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0-1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90-£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). CONCLUSIONS: Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.

Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosythesis and breast MRI to monitor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: patient tolerance and preference.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CE-DBT) is a novel imaging technique, combining contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and tomosynthesis. This may offer an alternative imaging technique to breast MRI for monitoring of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This paper addresses patient experience and preference regarding the two techniques. METHODS: Conducted as part of a prospective pilot study; patients were asked to complete questionnaires pertaining to their experience of CE-DBT and MRI following pre-treatment and end-of-treatment imaging. Questionnaires consisted of eight questions answered on a categorical scale, two using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and a question to indicate preference of imaging technique. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test for related samples using SPSS v. 25. RESULTS: 18 patients were enrolled in the pilot study. Matched CE-DBT and MRI questionnaires were completed after 22 patient episodes. Patient preference was indicated after 31 patient episodes. Overall, on 77% of occasions patients preferred CE-DBT with no difference between pre-treatment and end-of-treatment imaging. Overall experience (p = 0.008), non-breast pain (p = 0.046), anxiety measured using VAS (p = 0.003), and feeling of being put at ease by staff (p = 0.023) was better for CE-DBT. However, more breast pain was experienced during CE-DBT when measured on both VAS (p = 0.011) and categorical scale (p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Our paper suggests that patients prefer CE-DBT to MRI, adding further evidence in favour of contrast-enhanced mammographic techniques. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Contrast mammographic techniques offer an alternative, more accessible imaging technique to breast MRI. Whilst other studies have addressed patient experience of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, this is the first study to directly explore patient preference for CE-DBT over MRI in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, finding that overall, patients preferred CE-DBT despite the relatively long breast compression.

Digital breast tomosynthesis: sensitivity for cancer in younger symptomatic women.

OBJECTIVE: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has limited sensitivity for cancer in younger women with denser breasts. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can reduce the risk of cancer being obscured by overlying tissue. The primary study aim was to compare the sensitivity of FFDM, DBT and FFDM-plus-DBT in women under 60 years old with clinical suspicion of breast cancer. METHODS: This multicentre study recruited 446 patients from UK breast clinics. Participants underwent both standard FFDM and DBT. A blinded retrospective multireader study involving 12 readers and 300 mammograms (152 malignant and 148 benign cases) was conducted. RESULTS: Sensitivity for cancer was 86.6% with FFDM [95% CI (85.2-88.0%)], 89.1% with DBT [95% CI (88.2-90%)], and 91.7% with FFDM+DBT [95% CI (90.7-92.6%)]. In the densest breasts, the maximum sensitivity increment with FFDM +DBT over FFDM alone was 10.3%, varying by density measurement method. Overall specificity was 81.4% with FFDM [95% CI (80.5-82.3%)], 84.6% with DBT [95% CI (83.9-85.3%)], and 79.6% with FFDM +DBT [95% CI (79.0-80.2%)]. No differences were detected in accuracy of tumour measurement in unifocal cases. CONCLUSIONS: Where available, DBT merits first-line use in the under 60 age group in symptomatic breast clinics, particularly in women known to have very dense breasts. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is one of very few to address the accuracy of DBT in symptomatic rather than screening patients. It quantifies the diagnostic gains of DBT in direct comparison with standard digital mammography, supporting informed decisions on appropriate use of DBT in this population.