Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 20, 2026

Orthotopic Transplantation of Breast Tumors as Preclinical Models for Breast Cancer
Published on: May 18, 2020
Tumor Characteristics and Molecular Subtypes in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: The Malmö
Kristin Johnson1, Sophia Zackrisson1, Aldana Rosso1
1From the Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 49, 20502 Malmö, Sweden (K.J., S.Z., A.R., H.S., I.A., K.L.); and Translational Oncogenomics Unit, Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden (L.H.S.).
Abstract:
Background Screening accuracy can be improved with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). To further evaluate DBT in screening, it is important to assess the molecular subtypes of the detected cancers. Purpose To describe tumor characteristics, including molecular subtypes, of cancers detected at DBT compared with those detected at digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods The Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial is a prospective, population-based screening trial comparing one-view DBT with two-view DM. Tumor characteristics were obtained, and invasive cancers were classified according to St Gallen as follows: luminal A-like, luminal B-like human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-negative/HER2-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative cancers. Tumor characteristics were compared by mode of detection: DBT alone or DM (ie, DBT and DM or DM alone). χ2 test was used for data analysis. Results Between January 2010 and February 2015, 14 848 women were enrolled (mean age, 57 years ± 10; age range, 40-76 years). In total, 139 cancers were detected; 118 cancers were invasive and 21 were ductal carcinomas in situ. Thirty-seven additional invasive cancers (36 cancers with complete subtypes and stage) were detected at DBT alone, and 81 cancers (80 cancers with complete stage) were detected at DM. No differences were seen between DBT and DM in the distribution of tumor size 20 mm or smaller (86% [31 of 36] vs 85% [68 of 80], respectively; P = .88), node-negative status (75% [27 of 36] vs 74% [59 of 80], respectively; P = .89), or luminal A-like subtype (53% [19 of 36] vs 46% [37 of 81], respectively; P = .48). Conclusion The biologic profile of the additional cancers detected at digital breast tomosynthesis in a large prospective population-based screening trial was similar to those detected at digital mammography, and the majority were early-stage luminal A-like cancers. This indicates that digital breast tomosynthesis screening does not alter the predictive and prognostic profile of screening-detected cancers. © RSNA, 2019.
Related Concept Videos
07:45Orthotopic Transplantation of Breast Tumors as Preclinical Models for Breast Cancer
11:34Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers
10:51Modeling Breast Cancer in Human Breast Tissue using a Microphysiological System
10:10Long-term Culture of Human Breast Cancer Specimens and Their Analysis Using Optical Projection Tomography
09:29Studying Triple Negative Breast Cancer Using Orthotopic Breast Cancer Model
07:41Performing Data Mining And Integrative Analysis Of Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Multiple Publicly Accessible Databases

