PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 24, 20259 citations

Molecular Breast Imaging and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Dense Breast Screening: The Density MATTERS Trial.

View Full Paper
CHCarrie B. HruskaKHKatie N. HuntNLNicholas B. Larson

Key Points

  • Addition of molecular breast imaging to digital breast tomosynthesis significantly increased invasive cancer detection by 2.5-fold.
  • The cancer detection rate at year 1 was 11.8‰ with MBI, showing strong performance compared to 5.0‰ with DBT alone.
  • The trial involved 2978 participants, with results indicating the critical role of supplemental imaging in dense breast screening.
  • The recall rate increased modestly with the addition of MBI, highlighting the trade-off between detection and follow-up procedures.

Abstract

Background Molecular breast imaging (MBI) relies on the functional uptake of a radiotracer, technetium 99m sestamibi, to reveal cancers that are occult on mammograms due to breast density. Purpose To assess the performance of screening MBI as a supplement to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods In this prospective, multiyear, multicenter trial from five sites, women with dense breasts were prospectively enrolled from 2017 to 2022 and underwent two annual screening rounds of DBT and MBI to assess the incremental cancer detection rate (CDR, reported as cancers per 1000 screenings) of supplemental MBI and to compare other performance metrics of DBT and MBI. Results A total of 2978 participants were included. Participants had a mean age of 56.8 years ± 9.3 (SD) and a mean lifetime Tyrer-Cuzick risk of 12.0% ± 7.9 (SD). At year 1, the CDR was 5.0‰ (15 of 2978 participants) with DBT and 11.8‰ (35 of 2978 participants) with DBT plus prevalence screening MBI (incremental CDR, 6.7‰ 95% CI: 4.2, 10.6; P < .001); the invasive CDR was 3.0‰ (nine of 2978 participants) with DBT and 7.7‰ (23 of 2978 participants) with DBT plus prevalence screening MBI (invasive incremental CDR, 4.7‰ 95% CI: 2.7, 8.1; P < .001). At year 2, the CDR was 5.8‰ (15 of 2590 participants) with DBT and 9.3‰ (24 of 2590 participants) with DBT plus incidence screening MBI (incremental CDR, 3.5‰ 95% CI: 1.7, 6.8; P = .001); the invasive CDR was 1.5‰ (four of 2590 participants) with DBT and 3.9‰ (10 of 2590 participants) with DBT plus incidence screening MBI (invasive incremental CDR, 2.3‰ 95% CI: 0.9, 5.3; P = .048). The year 1 recall rate was 8.6% (255 of 2978 participants) with DBT and 17.9% (534 of 2978 participants) with DBT plus prevalence screening MBI (difference, 9.4% 95% CI: 8.4, 10.5). The year 2 recall rate was 8.9% (231 of 2590 participants) with DBT and 13.8% (356 of 2590 participants) with DBT plus incidence screening MBI (difference, 4.8% 95% CI: 4.1, 5.7). Twenty-nine participants had cancers detected only with MBI: 21 (72%) had invasive cancers (median size, 0.9 cm), 26 (90%) had node-negative cancers, and six (20%) had advanced cancers. The interval cancer rate was 0.7‰ (two of 2978 participants) in year 1 and 0.8‰ (two of 2590 participants) in year 2. Conclusion The addition of MBI to DBT screening increased invasive cancer detection by 2.5-fold and modestly increased the recall rate at the second screening round. © RSNA, 2025 See also the editorial by Fowler in this issue.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hruska et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d6e14f8b2b6861e4c3fba0https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.243953
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Molecular Breast Imaging Biopsy with a Dual-Detector System2024 · 7 citations
  2. 2Addition of Contrast-enhanced Mammography to Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Prospective TOCEM Trial Interim Analysis2024 · 28 citations
  3. 3Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts2016 · 235 citations
  4. 4Mammographic Breast Density: Impact on Breast Cancer Risk and Implications for Screening2015 · 347 citations
  5. 5Breast Cancer—Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual2017 · 987 citations