STORM, a new dimension for mammography screening

Nehmat Houssami
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (5): . || doi: 10.5694/mja13.10638
Published online: 2 September 2013

Evidence of improved detection using integrated 2D and 3D mammography provides opportunity for Australia to lead screening trials

The STORM (Screening with Tomosynthesis or Standard Mammography) trial, from a team of Italian and Australian researchers, reports the world’s first completed population breast screening trial of integrated 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) mammography.1 Using breast tomosynthesis, a pseudo-3D derivative of digital mammography, in combination with 2D mammography, STORM researchers found that breast cancer detection was significantly increased when screen-reading was performed using integrated 2D and 3D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (Box).1 The trial also showed that this screening method could significantly reduce false-positive results (Box). These data provide evidence that integrated 2D and 3D mammography would enhance breast screening performance measures, and are consistent with the interim findings of another population screening study conducted in Oslo, Norway, using the same mammographic technology.2

  • Screening and Diagnostic Test Evaluation Program, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.



I receive research support through a National Breast Cancer Foundation Practitioner Fellowship.

Competing interests:

The STORM trial was conducted in Italy with support from Hologic (Hologic, United States, and Technologic, Italy) through provision of tomosynthesis technology. I was the scientific director of the trial.

  • 1. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 583-589.
  • 2. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267: 47-56.
  • 3. Houssami N, Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 2013; 22: 101-108.
  • 4. Autier P, Esserman LJ, Flowers CI, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening: the questions answered. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9: 599-605.
  • 5. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380: 1778-1786.
  • 6. Glasziou P, Houssami N. The evidence base for breast cancer screening. Prev Med 2011; 53: 100-102.
  • 7. Roder D, Houssami N, Farshid G, et al. Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 108: 409-416.
  • 8. Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006; 332: 678-679.
  • 9. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Strategic review of health and medical research – better health through research. Summary report, February 2013. (accessed May 2013).


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.