Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12613000684729
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
10/08/2012
Date registered
21/06/2013
Date last updated
26/06/2013
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Comparative evaluation of Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CEMRI) for local staging of breast cancer: the CESM V study
Query!
Scientific title
Comparative evaluation of Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CEMRI) for local staging of breast cancer: the CESM V study
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
281006
0
Nil
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
U1111-1141-3342
Query!
Trial acronym
The CESM V Study
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Local staging of primary breast cancer
287142
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Cancer
287463
287463
0
0
Query!
Breast
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
CESM is carried out on commercially available equipment approved for diagnostic use in Australia, a device (Senographe DS - GE Healthcare Australia, Rydalmere, NSW) which is capable of delivering dual energy x-rays in quick succession, with both a normal low Kvp and a higher energy (45-50kVp) exposure. An injection of non-ionic iodinated contrast (1.5mg/kg delivering 350mg I/mL) is given via a catheter in an antecubital vein using a power injector at a rate of 3mL/s. Two minutes later, standard mammographic views (CC and MLO of both breasts) are performed with dual-energy exposures. All four views are obtained within 4 minutes of the injection. The high energy and low energy exposures are subtracted from one another taking advantage of the K-edge of iodine producing images which demonstrate areas of contrast enhancement. The extra exposure is associated with minor increase in radiation dose to the breast of 20% per image.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
285465
0
Diagnosis / Prognosis
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Comparison will be made with the findings on Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CEMRI)of the breast.
Breast CEMRI will be performed using standard departmental protocols which use a dedicated breast coil to obtain a T2 weighted sequence, T1 weighted pre contrast images, then T1 post contrast images following injection of 0.1mmol/kg gadolinium GDTA (Magnevist, Bayer Healthcare) with multiple post contrast images acquired every 90 seconds.
The current imaging gold standard technique is contrast enhanced MRI. This will be performed on a 1.5T MRI machine using a dedicated breast coil. Sequences will include T2 weighted sequence, T1 weighted pre contrast images, then T1 post contrast images following injection of 0.1mmol/kg gadolinium GDTA (Magnevist, Bayer Healthcare) with multiple post contrast images acquired every 90 seconds. A body coil image in coronal plane to show the axillae and infra and supraclavicular regions will also be performed.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
287727
0
Detection of additional lesions (each classified as benign or suspicious, to allow determination of TP, FP, TN, FN).
Query!
Assessment method [1]
287727
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
287727
0
Time points for assessment of primary outcome: immediately after the CESM and CEMRI studies have been performed, at time results of any core biopsies of these lesions (within 2-3 weeks of the studies), or at time of definitive surgery with review of pathology (usually within 6-8 weeks of diagnosis), or for those lesions not biopsied or excised, review with imaging follow up one year post diagnosis.
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
298726
0
Size of the index malignant lesion(s)
Query!
Assessment method [1]
298726
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
298726
0
Immediately following the CESM and MRI studies when they are reported by the radiologist.
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
303332
0
times taken for the CESM or CEMRI procedure
Query!
Assessment method [2]
303332
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
303332
0
measured at time of these procedures
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
303333
0
times taken by radiologists to read the studies
Query!
Assessment method [3]
303333
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
303333
0
measured at time radiologist fills in the CRF with the results of their assessment of the CESM or CEMRI examination
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
303334
0
Participants will be asked to complete a brief satisfaction survey using a Likert scale and a free text comment
Query!
Assessment method [4]
303334
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
303334
0
Filled in just after they have had their second of the two tests, which depending on the bookings will be the CESM or the CEMRI examination
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
-Female of any race or ethnicity.
-Aged 35 years and over.
-Core biopsy proven diagnosis of invasive breast cancer in one or both breasts.
-Participant fit to undergo surgical treatment, either breast conservation surgery or mastectomy.
Query!
Minimum age
35
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
-Male.
-Unable or unwilling to give informed consent.
-Impaired mobility (good mobility is needed to ensure the CESM can be performed within the required time after the contrast injection is given).
-Presence of breast implants.
-Pregnancy or breast feeding.
-A participant who is not fit for or declines surgical treatment.
-participant who is going to have neoadjuvant chemotherapy
-The breast lesion consists solely of “in-situ” carcinoma on core biopsy histology.
-Contraindication to the intravenous use of iodinated or gadolinium-chelated contrast agent, particularly renal insufficiency or allergy.
-Known contraindication to MRI examination, e.g. metallic implant, aneurysm clip
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Diagnosis
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Non-randomised trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate by a breast physician or radiologist.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Not applicable
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
The participants will all undergo both imaging tests.
Ground truth will be final histopathology in most cases.
Where any extra detected lesions over the index lesion are not surgically removed, core biopsy histology is the gold standard and where no biopsy is performed, follow up with imaging to look for absence of interval change at one year post treatment will be the gold standard.
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Sample size calculation:
The primary outcome of the study is the ability of the two methods to detect additional lesions. The sample size gives 80% power (alpha = 0.05) to detect a difference of one additional lesion as statistically significant if these occur in 20% of patients, with a 15% rate of attrition. This is insufficient to allow a conclusion of equivalence to be drawn, but it will provide a secure foundation for the planning of further studies. The design of this study is powered to achieve the secondary outcome (assessment of the size of the index lesion by CESM compared with MRI). The sample size of 60 subjects gives 95% power (alpha = 0.05) to detect as significant a difference of ±2 mm between the two methods. This will allow a conclusion of equivalence to be drawn if the two methods do not differ by more than ±2 mm.
Power analysis was conducted using PASS 2008 package.
Statistical analysis:
For the primary outcome we will assess the proportion of additional lesions with binomial confidence intervals for each imaging method. The definitive analysis will use a clustered (robust) tobit regression model because the data will be truncated with no cases with zero lesions. The additional detected lesions will be categorised based upon biopsy results and/or imaging follow-up.
For the secondary outcome, we expect the size of the lesion to follow a log-normal distribution and so a geometric mean will be used for descriptive purposes and a Wilcoxon sign-rank test will be used to compare the CESM and MRI estimates. Definitive analysis will use a linear regression model with a ln-transformed size as the dependent variable.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Not yet recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
19/06/2013
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
20/12/2013
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
60
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
WA
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
1142
0
Royal Perth Hospital - Perth
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
6989
0
6000 - Perth
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
285791
0
Other
Query!
Name [1]
285791
0
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Special Purpose Account
Query!
Address [1]
285791
0
Division of Imaging Services
Royal Perth Hospital
Wellington Street
Query!
Country [1]
285791
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Hospital
Query!
Name
Royal Perth Hospital
Query!
Address
Wellington Street
Perth WA 6001
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
284614
0
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name [1]
284614
0
GE Healthcare
Query!
Address [1]
284614
0
Unit 1, 24-28 Belmont Avenue
Belmont WA 6104
Query!
Country [1]
284614
0
Australia
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
287800
0
The Royal Perth Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
287800
0
Level 5 Colonial House, Royal Perth Hospital GPO Box X2213 Perth WA 6001
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
287800
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
287800
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
287800
0
26/07/2012
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
287800
0
2012/048
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CEMRI) of the breast is the most accurate imaging test to show the size and extent of breast cancer. A new technique, Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) is also capable of showing areas of abnormal blood flow in the breast that are associated with breast cancer, similar to the way in which contrast enhanced breast MRI works. Due to limited availability and cost, CEMRI is not routinely used to assess all breast cancers in Australia; rather its use is reserved to answer specific questions. Whilst approved for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), CESM is not routinely used for breast cancer assessment as its role in planning treatment is not yet clear. This study aims to see whether this new technique is as effective as CEMRI in showing the full extent of cancer in the breast - a finding that has been suggested in other studies of CESM. We hope that proof of this will allow more accurate assessment of women with potential cancerous areas in their breasts without the need for CEMRI, which is not suitable for everyone and not widely available due to cost and limited access to MRI machines.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
34562
0
Dr Donna Taylor
Query!
Address
34562
0
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
Royal Perth Hospital
Box X2213 GPO,
Perth 6847
Query!
Country
34562
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
34562
0
61 8 92242125
Query!
Fax
34562
0
61 8 92243764
Query!
Email
34562
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
17809
0
Donna Taylor
Query!
Address
17809
0
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
Royal Perth Hospital
Box X2213 GPO,
Perth 6847
Query!
Country
17809
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
17809
0
61 8 92242125
Query!
Fax
17809
0
61 8 92243764
Query!
Email
17809
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
8737
0
Donna Taylor
Query!
Address
8737
0
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
Royal Perth Hospital
Box X2213 GPO,
Perth 6847
Query!
Country
8737
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
8737
0
61 8 92242125
Query!
Fax
8737
0
61 8 92243764
Query!
Email
8737
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Current supporting documents:
Updated to:
Doc. No.
Type
Citation
Link
Email
Other Details
Attachment
23232
Study protocol
[email protected]
23233
Informed consent form
[email protected]
23234
Clinical study report
[email protected]
23235
Ethical approval
[email protected]
23236
Analytic code
[email protected]
23237
Statistical analysis plan
[email protected]
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
Source
Title
Year of Publication
DOI
Embase
Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: As good as or potentially better than MRI?.
2014
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12219
Embase
Accuracy and precision of contrast enhanced mammography versus MRI for predicting breast cancer size: how "good" are they really?.
2023
https://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211172
Embase
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI for breast cancer staging: detection of additional malignant lesions not seen on conventional imaging.
2023
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-022-00318-5
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.
Download to PDF