Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| R01CA187593-01A1 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Cancer Institute (NCI) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of technologist-performed whole breast ultrasound for detecting breast cancer in the screening population of women with dense breasts.
This is a prospective study designed to evaluate the role of whole breast ultrasound (WBUS) in screening for breast cancer. In particular, there is interest in investigating the value of using WBUS as an adjunct (supplementary imaging) to Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) based screening of women with dense (heterogeneously or extremely dense) breasts or as a primary screening examination in this group of women. Women scheduled for their routine mammography that includes a DBT exam who agree to participate in the study and sign informed consent will undergo (at the same visit) DBT imaging as part of their clinical exam and whole breast ultrasound (WBUS) each year for three rounds of screening plus one year of follow-up. The DBT images and WBUS will be interpreted independently by two experienced radiologists under standard clinical screening procedures. One radiologist will interpret the DBT and the other radiologist will interpret the WBUS. Using a modified "LOGICAL OR" approach women/subjects may be recalled for further diagnostic work-up (examinations). If a subject is recalled, she will then follow the standard/routine clinical procedures for follow-up and the investigators will verify outcomes. If neither radiologist recalls the subject, then the subject will follow conventional management and the investigators will verify outcome. The findings from the DBT and WBUS examinations, as well as any resulting follow-up, will be collected, recorded and analyzed.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whole breast ultrasound | Experimental | All women will receive both 3D mammography and whole breast ultrasound for breast cancer screening; the order of interpretation will vary for each of two radiologists |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole breast ultrasound | Device | Breast cancer screening with whole breast ultrasound |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Cancer Yield Per 1,000 | Results from the first radiologist observer are presented | 3 Years |
| Sensitivity (True Positive Rate) | DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer | 3 years |
| False-positive Recall Rate | DBT false-positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer | 3 years |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Types of Abnormalities Detected by Ultrasound and Tomosynthesis | Counts and percentages of participants diagnosed with cancer and detected by first observer with DBT only, DBT and WBUS, and WBUS only | 3 years |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Wendie Berg, MD, PhD | University of Pittsburgh | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weinstein Imaging Associates | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania | 15206 | United States | ||
| Magee-Womens Hospital |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 36626696 | Derived | Berg WA, Zuley ML, Chang TS, Gizienski TA, Chough DM, Bohm-Velez M, Sharek DE, Straka MR, Hakim CM, Hartman JY, Harnist KS, Tyma CS, Kelly AE, Waheed U, Houshmand G, Nair BE, Shinde DD, Lu AH, Bandos AI, Berg JM, Lettiere NB, Ganott MA. Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Performance of Technologist-Performed Screening Breast Ultrasound After Tomosynthesis in Women With Dense Breasts (the DBTUST). J Clin Oncol. 2023 May 1;41(13):2403-2415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01445. Epub 2023 Jan 10. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Whole Breast Ultrasound | All women will receive both 3D mammography and whole breast ultrasound for breast cancer screening; the order of interpretation will vary for each of two radiologists Whole breast ultrasound: Breast cancer screening with whole breast ultrasound |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Screening Round |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Between First and Second Screening |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Second Screening Round |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Between Second and Third Screening |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Third Screening Round |
|
After exclusions, we analyzed the results from 6,179 women overall
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Whole Breast Ultrasound | All women will receive both 3D mammography and whole breast ultrasound for breast cancer screening; the order of interpretation will vary for each of two radiologists Whole breast ultrasound: Breast cancer screening with whole breast ultrasound |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Cancer Yield Per 1,000 | Results from the first radiologist observer are presented | Screens 2 & 3 include women who were analyzable after the end of Screening Round 2 | Posted | Number | 95% Confidence Interval | Cancer yield per 1,000 | 3 Years |
|
3 years
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Whole Breast Ultrasound | All women will receive both 3D mammography and whole breast ultrasound for breast cancer screening; the order of interpretation will vary for each of two radiologists Whole breast ultrasound: Breast cancer screening with whole breast ultrasound |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Wendie A. Berg | University of Pittsburgh | 412-641-1635 | bergwa@upmc.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | May 11, 2022 | Apr 25, 2023 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001943 | Breast Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D001941 | Breast Diseases |
| D012871 | Skin Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Pittsburgh |
| Pennsylvania |
| 15213 |
| United States |
| Withdrawal by Subject |
|
| Death |
|
|
|
|
|
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Breast Density | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Sensitivity (True Positive Rate) | DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer | Women diagnosed with cancer | Posted | Number | 95% Confidence Interval | percentage of participants with cancer | 3 years |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Types of Abnormalities Detected by Ultrasound and Tomosynthesis | Counts and percentages of participants diagnosed with cancer and detected by first observer with DBT only, DBT and WBUS, and WBUS only | Cancers detected by first observer for all 3 Screenings/Years combined | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 3 years |
|
|
|
| Primary | False-positive Recall Rate | DBT false-positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer | Women who did not have a cancer diagnosis | Posted | Number | 95% Confidence Interval | percent of participants without cancer | 3 years |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
| 6,266 |
| 0 |
| 6,266 |
| 0 |
| 6,266 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D017437 |
| Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases |
| Years/Screens 2 & 3 |
|
|
| Other |
We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1. |
| The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added CDR from US of 1.1/1,000.Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer. | nonparametric bootstrap approach | The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units | < 0.001 | The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 | simple proportions | 13.5 | 2-Sided | 95 | 4.9 | 22.3 | Other | We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 and 3. |
| No. of invasive cancers |
|
|
| No. of Node-positive among available staging |
|
|
| Years/Screens 2 & 3 |
|
|
| nonparametric bootstrap approach | The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units | < 0.001 | The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 | simple proportions | 3.7 | 2-Sided | 95 | 3.3 | 4.1 | Other | We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 & 3. |