MR Imaging as an Additional Screening Modality for the Detection of Breast Cancer in Women Aged 50–75 Years with Extremely Dense Breasts: The DENSE Trial Study Design

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141827

The Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening, or DENSE, trial is a randomized multicenter trial to evaluate supplementary MR imaging screening in women with extremely dense breasts that is aimed at detecting a reduction in interval cancers as a proxy of breast cancer mortality.

Women with extremely dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer and lower mammographic tumor detectability. Nevertheless, in most countries, these women are currently screened with mammography only. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has the potential to improve breast cancer detection at an early stage because of its higher sensitivity. However, MR imaging is more expensive and is expected to be accompanied by an increase in the number of false-positive results and, possibly, an increase in overdiagnosis. To study the additional value of MR imaging, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design is needed in which one group undergoes mammography and the other group undergoes mammography and MR imaging. With this design, it is possible to determine the proportion of interval cancers within each study arm. For this to be an effective screening strategy, the additional cancers detected at MR imaging screening must be accompanied by a subsequent reduction in interval cancers. The Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening, or DENSE, trial is a multicenter RCT performed in the Dutch biennial population-based screening program (subject age range, 50–75 years). The study was approved by the Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. In this study, mammographic density is measured by using a fully automated volumetric method. Participants with extremely dense breasts (American College of Radiology breast density category 4) and a negative result at mammography (Breast Imaging Recording and Data System category 1 or 2) are randomly assigned to undergo additional MR imaging (n = 7237) or to be treated according to current practice (n = 28 948). Participants provide written informed consent before the MR imaging examination, which consists of dynamic breast MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast medium and is intended to be performed for three consecutive screening rounds. The primary outcome is the difference in the proportions of interval cancers between the study arms. Secondary outcomes are the number of MR imaging screening–detected cancers, proportions of false-positive results, diagnostic yield of MR imaging, tumor characteristics, quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

© RSNA, 2015

References

  • 1. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. NETCB. National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands 1990-2011/2012. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Optima Grafische Communicatie, 2014. Google Scholar
  • 2. de Gelder R. Predicting the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: current debates and future directions [master’s thesis]. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University Medical Center, 2012. Google Scholar
  • 3. Kauhava L, Immonen-Räihä P, Parvinen I, et al. Lower costs of hospital treatment of breast cancer through a population-based mammography screening programme. Eur J Public Health 2004;14(2):128–133. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227–236. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):297–300. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7(12):1133–1144. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, et al. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. RadioGraphics 1998;18(6):1587–1598. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159–1169. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9(6):217. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation. Radiology 2013;269(3):887–892. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Weinstein SP, Localio AR, Conant EF, Rosen M, Thomas KM, Schnall MD. Multimodality screening of high-risk women: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(36):6124–6128. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(9):1450–1457. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008;148(9):671–679. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5):427–437. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Saadatmand S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Rutgers EJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105(17):1314–1321. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Schouten van der Velden AP, Schlooz-Vries MS, Boetes C, Wobbes T. Magnetic resonance imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ: what is its clinical application? a review. Am J Surg 2009;198(2):262–269. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012;307(13):1394–1404. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006;332(7543):678–679. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BIRADS atlas). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 20. Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979;300(22):1242–1245. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jørgensen OD, Søndergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996;348(9040):1467–1471. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Atkin WS, Cook CF, Cuzick J, et al. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359(9314):1291–1300. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229(3):877–884. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al. Baseline findings of the Italian multicenter randomized controlled trial of “once-only sigmoidoscopy”: SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(23):1763–1772. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Hoff G, Grotmol T, Skovlund E, Bretthauer M; Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention Study Group. Risk of colorectal cancer seven years after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;338:b1846. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. ICH GCP. Good Clinical Practice: 5.18: Monitoring. http://ichgcp.net/518-monitoring. Accessed July 31, 2014. Google Scholar
  • 27. van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Huisman H, Boetes C, Karssemeijer N. Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25(3):273–282. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Highnam R, Brady M. Mammographic image analysis. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Gweon HM, Youk JH, Kim JA, Son EJ. Radiologist assessment of breast density by BI-RADS categories versus fully automated volumetric assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(3):692–697. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Gubern-Mérida A, Kallenberg M, Platel B, Mann RM, Martí R, Karssemeijer N. Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: a validation study. PLoS ONE 2014;9(1):e85952. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Lee HN, Sohn YM, Han KH. Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists’ visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them. Acta Radiol 2014 Oct 22. [Epub ahead of print] Google Scholar
  • 32. Wang J, Azziz A, Fan B, et al. Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI. PLoS ONE 2013;8(12):e81653. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J, et al. Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16(5):439. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Brand JS, Czene K, Shepherd JA, et al. Automated measurement of volumetric mammographic density: a tool for widespread breast cancer risk assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23(9):1764–1772. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Expert Panel on MR SafetyKanal E, Barkovich AJ, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37(3):501–530. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR Manual on Contrast Media. Version 9. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013. Google Scholar
  • 37. Choudhury D, Ahmed Z. Drug-associated renal dysfunction and injury. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2006;2(2):80–91. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Page CP, Curtis MJ, Walker MJA, Hoffman BB. Integrated pharmacology. 3rd ed. London, England: Mosby, 2006. Google Scholar
  • 39. Kumar PJ, Clark ML. Kumar and Clark clinical medicine. 6th ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Saunders, 2005. Google Scholar
  • 40. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK, et al. BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 41. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16(3):199–208. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42. Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography. Value Health 2007;10(4):294–304. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43. Brodersen J, Thorsen H. Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire. Scand J Prim Health Care 2008;26(4):251–256. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44. Rijnsburger AJ, Essink-Bot ML, van Dooren S, et al. Impact of screening for breast cancer in high-risk women on health-related quality of life. Br J Cancer 2004;91(1):69–76. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85(5):365–376. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 46. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol 1996;14(10):2756–2768. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47. de Gelder R, Bulliard JL, de Wolf C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(1):127–138. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48. Groenewoud JH, Otten JD, Fracheboud J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different reading and referral strategies in mammography screening in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;102(2):211–218. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49. Okonkwo QL, Draisma G, der Kinderen A, Brown ML, de Koning HJ. Breast cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for India. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(18):1290–1300. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 50. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. NETCB. National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, 1990-2007. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Optima Grafische Communicatie, 2009. Google Scholar
  • 51. van Gils CH, Otten JD, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Straatman H, Verbeek AL. High mammographic breast density and its implications for the early detection of breast cancer. J Med Screen 1999;6(4):200–204. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 52. Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology 2010;254(1):79–87. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 53. Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1997;16(9):1017–1029. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 54. Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ, Miles JN. Is there another way to take account of noncompliance in randomized controlled trials? CMAJ 2006;175(4):347. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 55. Are You Dense Advocacy Web site. http://www.areyoudenseadvocacy.org. Accessed July 31, 2014. Google Scholar
  • 56. Beemsterboer PM, de Koning HJ, Kranse R, Trienekens PH, van der Maas PJ, Schröder FH. Prostate specific antigen testing and digital rectal examination before and during a randomized trial of screening for prostate cancer: European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Rotterdam. J Urol 2000;164(4):1216–1220. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 57. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012;265(1):59–69. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 58. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The Connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J 2012;18(6):517–522. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 59. Girardi V, Tonegutti M, Ciatto S, Bonetti F. Breast ultrasound in 22,131 asymptomatic women with negative mammography. Breast 2013;22(5):806–809. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 60. Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 2013;37(3):480–486. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 61. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292(11):1317–1325. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received September 9, 2014; revision requested November 18; revision received February 5, 2015; accepted February 23; final version accepted March 23.
Published online: June 23 2015
Published in print: Nov 2015