Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-12965
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiologist (scientific)
Authorblock: L. Kregting1, E. Heijnen1, L. B. Van Den Oever1, L. Pennings1, M. Van Oirsouw2, I. Sechopoulos3, M. Broeders1, F. T. Stream Consortium4; 1Nijmegen/NL, 2Utrecht/NL, 3Nijmegen and Enschede/NL, 4-/NL
Disclosures:
Lindy Kregting: Nothing to disclose
Elle Heijnen: Nothing to disclose
Leonardus Bernardus Van Den Oever: Nothing to disclose
Lian Pennings: Nothing to disclose
M Van Oirsouw: Nothing to disclose
Ioannis Sechopoulos: Speaker: Siemens Healthcare, Canon Medical Grant Recipient: Siemens Healthcare, Canon Medical, Screenpoint Medical, Sectra Benelux, Hologic, Volpara Solutions, Lunit Inc, iCAD, E-COM. Advisory Board: Koning Corp.
Mireille Broeders: Speaker: Hologic, Siemens Healthcare. Grant Recipient: Screenpoint Medical, Sectra Benelux, Hologic, Volpara Solutions, Lunit inc,. iCAD.
For The Stream Consortium: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Breast, Oncology, Professional issues, Mammography, Screening, Workforce
Purpose The Screening Tomosynthesis trial with advanced REAding Methods (STREAM) investigates the potential performance and impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. STREAM is prospective, non-randomised, parallel-group population-based trial embedded in the Dutch programme. The intervention arm (n=17,275) undergoes two rounds of DBT imaging and the control group (n=86,400) undergoes two rounds of DM screening acquired around the same time as the DBT examinations. Outcomes of interest are short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness...
Read more Methods and materials Out of 44,682 invited screening participants, 18,225 participated in the first round of the STREAM trial. Together with the approximately 100 screening radiographers and 35 screening radiologists involved, they were asked to complete an online survey on the acceptability of DBT screening. Participants reported their experience with DBT screening compared to previous DM screening examinations. This was reported with questions on pain, discomfort, and anxiety on a 4 point Likert scale and a pain score (scale 0-10). Participants were also...
Read more Results ParticipantsThe survey was completed by 10,983 of the 18,225 participants (60%). In total, 39% reported DBT as not being painful at all (compared to 27% for DM), and 52% only some (compared to 46% for DM). No or some discomfort was experienced by 93% (compared to 76% for DM), and 97% reported no anxiety at all (compared to 88% for DM) (Table 1). The average pain score was 3, which was lower compared to the average score the participants reported...
Read more Conclusion Participants have a high acceptability for DBT screening. Their experience is comparable or favourable to DM screening. Many participants reported to have experienced no difference compared to DM. Radiographers were generally content to work with DBT, but radiologists request improvements to enhance workability. Improvements in loading and reading time were suggested. This feedback is being used to improve the second round of DBT screening in the STREAM trial.
Read more References Kregting L, van den Oever D, Pennings L et al (2025) The Screening Tomosynthesis Trial with Advanced Reader Methods (STREAM): design and rationale of a population-based breast cancer screening trial. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11324-z Erasmus MC (2024) Landelijke monitor bevolkingsonderzoek borstkanker 2023. Van Ravesteyn N, Broeders, MJM, Kregting LM et al (2023) National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands.
Read more
GALLERY