Digital Mammography Screening Trial (ACRIN6652)

NCT ID: NCT00008346

Last Updated: 2017-07-11

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

49528 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2001-10-31

Study Completion Date

2005-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

RATIONALE: Screening tests may help doctors detect cancer cells early and plan more effective treatment for cancer. It is not yet known which type of mammography is more effective in detecting breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Screening and diagnostic trial to compare the effectiveness of two types of mammography in detecting breast cancer in women.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

OBJECTIVES:

* Compare the diagnostic performance of digital mammography vs screen-film mammography, as measured by the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, in the detection of breast cancer in women.
* Compare the diagnostic accuracy of the digital mammogram obtained using each of the individual manufacturer's digital units vs screen-film mammography through retrospective reader studies.
* Determine the effects of patient characteristics, including age, lesion type, pathologic diagnosis, menopausal and hormonal status, breast density, and family history, on diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography.
* Determine the effects of technical parameters, including display type, machine type, and detector spatial and contrast resolution, on diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography.
* Determine the effect of reduced false-positive mammograms that are expected with digital mammography on the health-related quality of life and personal anxiety of women undergoing this screening experience.
* Compare the diagnostic performance of digital mammography with the rate of cancer in a set of cases through a retrospective reader study.
* Compare the effect of softcopy vs printed film display on the diagnostic performance of digital mammography through a retrospective reader study.
* Compare the effect of breast density on the diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography vs screen-film mammography through a retrospective reader study.
* Compare the image quality and breast radiation dose in digital vs screen-film mammography in these participants.
* Determine the temporal variations in image quality, breast radiation dose, and other quality control parameters in the participating study centers.

OUTLINE: This is a randomized, multicenter study. Participants with postitive screening results are stratified according to age (under 50 vs 50-59 vs 60-70 vs over 70). Participants are randomized to one of two treatment arms.

* Arm I: Participants undergo a two-view screen-film mammogram followed by a two-view digital mammogram of each breast.
* Arm II: Participants undergo a two-view digital mammogram followed by a two-view screen-film mammogram of each breast.

Quality of life is assessed before the screening mammogram in the first 800 women enrolled. In an additional 1,200 participants (600 with positive screening results and 600 with negative screening results), quality of life is assessed shortly after the screening mammogram and at 1 year.

Participants are followed at 1 year with a repeat screen-film or digital mammogram.

PROJECTED ACCRUAL: A total of 49,500 participants (24,750 per arm) will be accrued for this study within 18 months.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Breast Cancer

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

SCREENING

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

SFM then FFDM

Screen Film Mammography (SFM) followed by Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)

Group Type OTHER

Screen Film Mammography

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Radiologic test to screen women for Breast cancer using plain film detectors a resolution screen

Full Field Digital Mammography

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Radiologic test to screen women for Breast cancer using digital detectors

FFDM then SFM

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) followed by Screen Film Mammography (SFM)

Group Type OTHER

Screen Film Mammography

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Radiologic test to screen women for Breast cancer using plain film detectors a resolution screen

Full Field Digital Mammography

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Radiologic test to screen women for Breast cancer using digital detectors

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Screen Film Mammography

Radiologic test to screen women for Breast cancer using plain film detectors a resolution screen

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Full Field Digital Mammography

Radiologic test to screen women for Breast cancer using digital detectors

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

FFDM Digital Mammography SFM Plain Film Mamography

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Exclusion Criteria

4.2.2 All women who have breast implants. 4.2.3 Any woman who is pregnant or has reason to believe that she might be pregnant.

4.2.4 Participants who cannot, for any reason, undergo follow-up screen-film mammography at the participating institution or provide mammograms from another institution for review for one year after study entry.

4.2.5 All women with a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy. Note: Women with a history of breast cancer treated with mastectomy who have now returned to a screening population will still be included in the study.
Maximum Eligible Age

120 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

NIH

Sponsor Role collaborator

American College of Radiology Imaging Network

NETWORK

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Etta Pisano, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

University of California Davis Cancer Center

Sacramento, California, United States

Site Status

University of Colorado Cancer Center at University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

Aurora, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Washington Radiology Associates, P.C.

Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States

Site Status

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute

Tampa, Florida, United States

Site Status

Emory Health Care Clinic

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

University of Chicago Cancer Research Center

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

La Grange Memorial Hospital

La Grange, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins

Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Lahey Clinic - Burlington

Burlington, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

William Beaumont Hospital

Royal Oak, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Siteman Cancer Center

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Monmouth Medical Center

Long Branch, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Shore Memorial Hospital

Somers Point, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center at Columbia University

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic

Rochester, New York, United States

Site Status

Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Charles M. Barrett Cancer Center at University Hospital

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Kimmel Cancer Center of Thomas Jefferson University - Philadelphia

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Allegheny General Hospital

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Roger Williams Medical Center/BUSM

Providence, Rhode Island, United States

Site Status

Simmons Cancer Center - Dallas

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Cancer Center at the University of Virginia

Charlottesville, Virginia, United States

Site Status

University of Washington Medical Center

Seattle, Washington, United States

Site Status

Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre

North York, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States Canada

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, Herman B, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb;194(2):362-9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2114.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20093597 (View on PubMed)

Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, Pisano ED; DMIST Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 1;148(1):1-10. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-1-200801010-00002.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18166758 (View on PubMed)

Baum JK, Hanna LG, Acharyya S, Mahoney MC, Conant EF, Bassett LW, Pisano ED. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):61-7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101285. Epub 2011 Apr 18.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 21502382 (View on PubMed)

Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Marques H, Cohen MA, Jong RA, Mawdsley GE, Kanal KM, D'Orsi CJ, Rebner M, Gatsonis C. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology. 2008 Apr;247(1):38-48. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2471070418.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 18372463 (View on PubMed)

Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, Hanna LA, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Jong RA, Rebner M, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis CA; DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):376-83. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2461070200.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 18227537 (View on PubMed)

Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Mawdsley GE, Bright S, Shen SZ, Mahesh M, Nickoloff EL, Fleischman RC, Williams MB, Maidment AD, Beideck DJ, Och J, Seibert JA. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar;33(3):719-36. doi: 10.1118/1.2163407.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16878575 (View on PubMed)

Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Mawdsley GE, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Fajardo LL, Boone JM, Kanal K, Mahesh M, Fleischman RC, Och J, Williams MB, Beideck DJ, Maidment AD. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med Phys. 2006 Mar;33(3):737-52. doi: 10.1118/1.2164067.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16878576 (View on PubMed)

Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Bassett LW, Baum JK, Conant EF, Jong RA, Rebner M, D'Orsi CJ. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):404-12. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2362050440. Epub 2005 Jun 16.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 15961755 (View on PubMed)

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1773-83. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911. Epub 2005 Sep 16.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16169887 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

ACRIN-6652

Identifier Type: OTHER

Identifier Source: secondary_id

U01CA080098

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: secondary_id

View Link

U01CA079778

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: secondary_id

View Link

CDR0000068399

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial
NCT02616432 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA